The Law of Schools, Students and Teachers in a Nutshell
Authors:
Alexander, Kern / Alexander, M. David / Alexander, F. King
Edition:
7th
Copyright Date:
2022
26 chapters
have results for The Law of Schools, Students and Teachers
Chapter 8. Student Discipline 73 results (showing 5 best matches)
- means that the teacher has the authority and the duty to guide, correct, and punish the child in the accomplishment of educational objectives. The teacher is the substitute for the parent while the child is in school and for those endeavors which bear directly on the school. The teacher, however, does not have unlimited control over the student and, of course, neither does the parent for that matter. Child abuse is prohibited whether it is committed by a parent or a teacher. To stand in the place of the parent, though, means that the teacher can control the conduct of the student in
- The fact specific disruption standard of does little to enhance lower Court’s applications of . Four U.S. Courts of Appeals have issued what appear to be conflicting opinions as to the legal message of in identifying a “reasonable forecast of disruption” for intrusive, invective Internet communication launched from off-campus computers and directed toward teachers, administrators or fellow students. Thus, the law regarding what actually constitutes “disruption” lacks clarity, leaving school officials in a quandary as to the boundaries of off-campus speech. The Eighth, Second and Fourth Circuits have given school officials greater latitude and discretion in calling students to account for off-campus electronic incursions into the management of the public school. The Eighth Circuit decision involved a case where high school students created an off-campus website that was replete with racist bullying. After two school hearings, the student perpetrators were suspended from school for...
- If students violate school academic rules or teachers’ classroom academic requirements, then a reduction in grades or, even, a denial of promotion may be justified. In a case where four students submitted a paper for a history project that had to be largely copied verbatim from reference sources, the students were given a grade of zero. The parents sued claiming the teacher’s instructions had been unclear. At a hearing, the school superintendent found that the teacher had explained plagiarism and its consequences. The court held for the school district finding that the assigned grade was not inappropriate. The process afforded the student was reasonable and the assignment of a grade of zero was fair.
- Courts have long recognized that if schools are to be properly conducted, teachers and principals must be given authority to maintain an orderly and responsible learning environment. This requires that students live and study in a relationship of mutual accord with other students and with the school faculty. Disruption of the school social setting will undoubtedly have deleterious effects on the quality of the educational program. Recognizing this, courts have uniformly held that student conduct is under the reasonable control of school officials.
- In spite of the Supreme Court’s approval of the common law justification for corporal punishment in the public schools, the public’s acceptance of corporal punishment has apparently declined rather dramatically. During the recent past there has been substantial debate about the appropriateness of corporal punishment in schools. Today about two-thirds of the states prohibit corporal punishment. Those states that have no statutes regarding corporal punishment are governed by the common law right of school personnel to reasonably punish students. The theory is that the individual interests of the parent and the child may be subordinated to the interests of the state in good conduct and decorum in the schools. Parental permission is not necessarily required. In the absence of state statutes to the contrary, teachers or administrators may paddle students in spite of opposition of the parents. Where school officials spanked a pupil over the parent’s protest, the federal court held for the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Civil Liability 123 results (showing 5 best matches)
- One seldom mentioned provision for such protection in federal law was in the federal omnibus education act, cited as: . This part of the law, the Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, reinforces state laws protecting teachers and staff from liability in controlling student behavior that may harm other students. As with common law and state statutory provisions, the school, teachers, and staff will not suffer liability if the control over students is exercised “within the scope of the teacher’s or staff member’s employment.” The Coverdell law provides that teachers and staff will not be held liable so long as they act in conformance with law “in furtherance of efforts to control, discipline, expel, or suspend a student or maintain order or control in the classroom or school,” and that the teacher or staff member does not act with gross negligence, reckless misconduct, willful or criminal misconduct or flagrant disregard for the student’s rights. This statutory provision...
- The bottom line with regard to the legalisms of bullying is that: first, schools are responsible to act reasonably in the exercise of their status; second, the common law rules of tort law apply, a duty, standard of care, foreseeability and reasonableness; third, courts will provide administrators and students with broad discretion in the conduct of the school; fourth, schools, as corporate entities, and/or school administrators and teachers generally have a qualified or conditional privilege that protects them against liability unless their standard of care to protect students is not commensurate with the duty owed; fifth, schools, school administrators and teachers are vulnerable to liability if they are “indifferent” or “deliberately indifferent” to the plight of a bullied child; sixth, complaints of bullying beyond tort liability may possibly gain traction by plaintiffs if a state or federal statute or constitutional violation can be substantiated. In this regard, the effects...
- The question, of course, arises: Is the teacher, school official or school district liable if bullying is not prevented and someone is injured? Standard tort precedents normally apply to bullying situations; that is, the school teacher or administrator must have been able to reasonably foresee that a student would be harmed by another student and took no corrective action. In New York it has been held that while schools have a duty to adequately supervise students, such a duty does not make the school teachers and administrators insurers of the safety of students. It is well established that a legal duty may be found on the part of a school administrator or teacher if it is foreseeable that harm might result if reasonable care is not exercised.
- The teacher, however, will not be liable unless a “special relationship” exists between an injured student and the teacher or school. While a “special relationship” is usually presumed to exist between students and teachers (or school administrators), the student’s connection to the school may be so remote as to create a legal nexus between teacher or school and the injured student.
- One court has explained the teacher’s privilege with regard to criminal battery in this way. “Teachers under the authority of school boards are authorized by law to use reasonable force to maintain good conduct in classes and on school property. Teachers are invested with the prerogative, and indeed obligation, to hold students accountable for their actions. If corporal punishment is required, and allowed by state statute, to fulfill this responsibility, then no criminal battery can accrue if the punishment is reasonable and not excessive.” Where a misbehaving student was grabbed by his jacket collar by a teacher and either tripped or was forced to the floor, the court said that the teacher acted reasonably under the circumstances and no battery had occurred.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17. Teacher Dismissal 99 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Teachers and, of course, other employees of public schools must be pure in intent and practice when dealing with students. States, generally, have statutes and judicial precedents that protect minors who are in the custodial care of adults at school, such as teachers, school administrators, and others who are responsible for overseeing students under school control, on and off campus.
- A teacher’s willful disobedience of a school board regulation may, of course, constitute insubordination. One such good example was present where a 14-year veteran teacher persisted in teaching creationism and intelligent design, gave students religious materials, challenged scientific textbooks that conflicted with biblical accounts of creation. The school principal advised the teacher in writing to stop displaying a Bible and religious materials before students in class. The teacher continued to do so and the school board terminated the teacher’s contract. The teacher sued and the case went to the Supreme Court of Ohio which held for the school board. The court found that the teacher’s willful disobedience constituted “blatant insubordination.”
- In a case where a building trades teacher and his wife in a supervisory relationship with a student smoked marijuana, drank alcohol, played a sex-theme game and used sexual conduct with the student, the court ruled the predatory behavior and exploitation of the student was a felony and the trades teacher was sentenced to eleven years in jail.
- Where a teacher was investigated by the police for possessing candid pictures of teenagers that had been taken at his home, the school district removed him from his extracurricular duties yet retained him as a teacher. The police did not charge the teacher with a crime. The teacher sued the school board claiming denial of due process and sought damages. The federal court held that the school board’s action was reasonable in light of its obligation to protect the safety of students, particularly in view of the fact that the employee was a teacher and a coach of students who were about the same age of the persons in the photographs.
- The Internet has mesmerized teachers and students as it has most persons in the civilized world. Case law reveals that not only students but some teachers have been found to inappropriately convey lewd pictures of themselves and, in addition, have occasionally made suggestive comments via social media about their students and others. Court records indicate that some teacher’s excuses mostly reflect naiveté in the permanency and the viral nature of the Internet. For example, in one case, a teacher, after a trying day at school, posted on Facebook “I’m not a teacher—I’m a warden for future criminals.” The teacher was dismissed because of parental uproar. She sued and argued that her postings were protected by the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. She did not prevail because she was not speaking as a citizen on a matter of “public concern.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Search and Seizure 114 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In an earlier Pennsylvania case, a student had a cellphone turned on at school in violation of a school policy. When a teacher confiscated the phone, a text message appeared on the screen from another student requesting drugs. The teacher and assistant principal then discovered on the cellphone’s directory names of nine students. The students were called in to determine if their cellphones were also turned on in violation of school policy. Further investigation by the teacher and school official found that the student who was originally the source of the investigation was accused of being a drug peddler and made such known to the press. Parents of the student whose phone was first confiscated sued in federal court claiming that the teacher and school officials had violated the student’s privacy in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The federal district court found for the student and parents holding that by accessing the phone directory, voicemail, and text messages, and the use of...
- The problem of drugs in today’s society has risen to an ongoing arena of major concern of teachers and officials in public schools The question, thus, arises as to whether school officials can search individual students, and, secondly, can the school search several students or groups of students? Previous case mentioned above, including clearly indicate that individual student’s persons and things can be searched if there is reasonable suspicion that drugs are secreted there.
- Teachers and principals have frequently found it necessary to search students and remove from their possession items which may be harmful to them or to others. Several years ago most searches were found to be necessary to remove slingshots or pocketknives from a student’s possession, or to detect and retrieve the fruits of minor thievery. Such searches remained almost entirely an affair internal to the school and seldom, if ever, involved outside authorities. Today, however, the prevalence of drugs, guns, bombs, and/or bomb threats have broadened the importance of school search to include offenses which may subject the student to criminal prosecution. Moreover, in today’s world students have the ubiquitous means of the Internet to spread disruptive messages throughout the school at the speed of light, and the school is forced into the unhappy position of identifying the senders, searching for cellphones, and capturing the essence of the offending messages. A majority of the student...
- In Maryland where state law permitted reasonable searches of a student based on the belief that a student had in his possession something that would constitute evidence in a criminal offense, the court held that school lockers could be searched by school officials. The state law made it clear that a student could not have had an expectation of privacy in the school locker that was temporarily assigned to him. . As this case and others indicate, the school or school district policy and/or state statute regarding the nature of lockers should clearly state that the student is not in sole possession of the locker, and that it is not a private place as against the school (against the world) but, rather, the school is the owner and reserves right of entry to its own property at any time. With such a clear right of entry to lockers, school officials can require that all lockers be emptied if they fear that something is hidden there that may be harmful to students.
- One may wonder what the consequences are of an illegal search of students by teachers or school administrators. What redress is available for the student? As discussed above, if the search is illegal, its fruits may or may not be excluded from prosecution of the student should a criminal trial ensue. Beyond this, the student may possibly bring an action under in this book.) As discussed elsewhere in this book, a student may seek damages under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, if the law is unclear based on the facts of the situation, or if school officials intentionally or with malice deny his or her constitutional rights. The Sixth Circuit in the
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Constitutional Rights of Teachers 84 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In view of and , teachers and school administrators are well-advised not to publicly criticize school policy in a way that could be detrimental to the operations of the school. One federal court, in taking a very restrictive view of teachers’ free speech rights, has said that a “school system does not ‘regulate’ teachers’ speech as much as it hires that speech.” In that regard, teachers must teach the prescribed curriculum and cannot use the classroom as a forum to express personal viewpoints, even of public concern, that is outside the curriculum content as prescribed by the school board. This court rejected the teacher’s claim that ‘academic freedom’ gave her a special forum to express her views.
- A teacher’s religious freedom may extend into several aspects of the educational program. For example, if the tenets of a teacher’s religion are violated by the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag, the teacher cannot be compelled to recite the pledge, but, the teacher, in accordance with school board rules, must conduct the pledge ceremony for student participation. Religious freedom of teachers will be sustained by the courts so long as the exercise of the freedom does not encroach on the rights of students or is not deleterious to the good conduct of the school.
- It goes without saying that a plaintiff teacher claiming retaliation for an exercise of speech of public concern must show that he did in fact speak out on an issue of public concern in the first place. Where a local newspaper published an unfavorable article about dust and fumes from a school construction project which caused minor illnesses to students and teachers, and the principal believed the teacher had contacted the reporter and called her to his office, the teacher denied contacting the reporter and the principal reassigned the teacher’s extracurricular responsibilities for which she was paid extra. The Court said that the First Amendment protects public employees from retaliation when they speak out on matters of public concern. Since the teacher denied contacting the reporter and the principal had no proof, then no issue of free speech actually took place. Therefore, the Court found for the school board simply because no constitutional right can be denied if no speech has...
- A teacher does not have an expectation of privacy in his desk or file cabinet. Moreover, all tests, quizzes and other educational material belong to the school and are not private property of a teacher.
- A high expectation of privacy exists for teachers and others in their public employment with regard to their health and other personal matters.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. The Instructional Program 103 results (showing 5 best matches)
- School officials and teachers have virtually complete discretion in determining what level of academic attainment will be required of students. School boards set general course requirements and teachers evaluate the students in achieving the objectives. Seldom will courts intervene to overturn a teacher’s academic evaluation of a student. Only where school boards or the teachers act in bad faith or are found to be arbitrary or capricious will their actions be overturned. Students, thus, may be placed in alternative classes or retained at a particular grade level depending on their academic performance. (See: Student Testing in this book.)
- The power of the state to compel attendance at school and to require all students to take instruction in the English language has been long recognized. Yet, the courts have not condoned the states’ overreaching their authority to prohibit the teaching of any other language. In a landmark case rendered in 1923, , a statute forbidding the teaching of foreign languages to students who had not completed the eighth grade in public, parochial, or private schools was challenged by an instructor in a parochial school who was retained by parents to give their child instruction in the German language. The statute was enacted in 1919 when the thoughts of the nation’s legislators were still much influenced by World War I. Constitutional basis for the plaintiff’s action was found in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which provides that “No state. . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty or
- Teaching methods may also be prescribed and regulated by the school district. Teachers do not have a constitutional right to use whatever teaching methodology pleases them if it runs counter to policies of the district. In a case illustrative of this point where two high school teachers claimed their First Amendment rights were violated when a school district refused to allow them to team-teach a history course, the students complained that the teaching technique affected the substance of the course. The Supreme Court of Washington held against the teachers pointing out that while some flexibility in teaching techniques may be employed by teachers, the teachers cannot be allowed to implement a particular technique that will detract from the effectiveness of the course.
- In such cases there has been little doubt about the authority of the school district to regulate the course content. Yet, the courts will examine each circumstance to determine if the magnitude of the teacher’s offensive behavior is sufficient to warrant the specific sanctions taken against the teacher. The primary issue to be considered by the courts is the extent and severity of the redress taken against the teacher. Firing of a teacher for unwittingly allowing obscene poetry to be read by students has been held too severe,
- School boards are empowered to set academic standards required to obtain a diploma. Such requirements, however, cannot be unreasonable and the diploma cannot be withheld except for valid reasons rationally related to the state’s interests in public education. A diploma is evidence of educational worth. A student having complied with all the rules and regulations necessary for graduation may not be denied a diploma by arbitrary action of the school board. By establishing and maintaining a public school system, the state creates an expectation, to be reasonably held by the student, that upon successful completion of required courses, he or she will be awarded a diploma. This expectation constitutes a “property interest” on the part of the student which cannot be arbitrarily taken away. The diploma as a property interest cannot be taken away except where the state’s interest exceeds that of the individual. Even then the denial can only be valid after the student has had an opportunity...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Student Publications 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- prohibited students from publishing materials that were obscene, libelous or slanderous, and in general furthered students’ rights against censorship in student publications by disallowing school censorship unless an article “encourages specific unlawful acts or rules violations.” Where a journalism teacher at a school permitted students to publish a photo-shopped picture of a baby smoking a cigarette with a caption saying “Students Chew, Use Tobacco” and another picture showed a student wearing clothes prohibited by the school dress code, captioned, “Jay Z because he is a gangster,” the journalism teacher was reprimanded, drawing a two-day suspension that was later retracted. However, the teacher sued the school district anyway arguing that the school had violated the statute and therefore his rights. The appellate court in Iowa ruled for the teacher concluding that the teacher had not encouraged the students to publish anything that violated the statute. The court observed that...
- In spite of the fact that most public schools are considered to be limited open forums for speech purposes, school authorities still have considerable discretion as to processes and procedures over distribution of literature and materials by students and others. In way of guidance for public school administrators and teachers, in the face of the United States Supreme Court’s rather confused signals, the following may be helpful for regulation of the distribution of literature (religious or otherwise) on school premises or at times and places when students are under the jurisdiction of the school:
- As mentioned above, parents frequently attempt to use the public school as a forum to proselytize their own particular beliefs, both political and religious. Schools must tread carefully to remain secular and not become inadvertent clearing houses for dogmas that may be misinterpreted as having the imprimatur or sanction of the school. Such an example was the case in Michigan, cited above, where an eighth-grade child came to school with red tape over his mouth and wrists, wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the words, “Pray to End Abortion,” and a bunch of leaflets rife with abortion statistics. The student did not have the school’s permission to distribute the leaflets, which the boy had strewn throughout the school hallways. A teacher sent the boy to the office for causing a disruption and a guidance counselor required him to remove the tape and change his apparel or hide the message. The school agreed not to press the sweatshirt issue, but adamantly rejected the parent’s...
- In recent years, litigation concerning student publications and their distribution has fallen into three categories: 1) school-sponsored newspapers; 2) non-school or underground newspapers written and distributed by students; and 3) materials distributed by students at school but written and published by non-students. The majority of the cases in the third category concerned the distribution by students of non-student written religious materials. The actions in this last group have resulted in a substantial amount of litigation regarding free speech versus Establishment Clause restrictions and what the courts call forum analysis.
- The litigation involved a challenge of a high school principal’s deletion of two articles written by students on the subjects of student pregnancy and divorce. One article described the pregnancy experience of three students while the other discussed the impact of divorce on students at the high school. The principal refused to allow the articles to be printed in the high school newspaper. “The court . . . undertook a forum inquiry, [and] concluded that the newspaper was a non-public forum, and held that the school officials had reasonably regulated the contents of the newspaper, thus satisfying the standard of review for state regulation in a non-public forum.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Student Records, Defamation, and Privacy 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Where a teacher conveys erroneous information about a student but believes the communication is truthful then the privileged occasion of the teacher will not be foregone. Statements by teachers must be motivated by a desire to protect the interest of the student or the school and, if so taken, then an honest belief that the communication is true will be protected. The fact that the teacher is unintentionally mistaken is, in this case, immaterial. Too, the teacher may be compelled to show that reasonable or probable grounds were available to support the truthfulness or belief in the truthfulness of the communication.
- If the plaintiff is unable to bring his or her case under one of these categories, he or she must resort to proving special harm or actual damages by the communication of defamation requires that the plaintiff prove actual damage. The plaintiff must show that publication of the defamation was the legal cause of special harm. The distinction between defamation and may rest on whether a crime is imputed. For example, the law holds that it is defamation and special damages must be proven if the words imputed to a teacher appear to harm the teacher’s reputation but do not relate to conduct of a crime, moral turpitude, unchastity, or damage the teacher in his or her profession. To say that a male teacher seduced a female student would, of course, be defamation ...the other hand, where a defendant had accused a headmaster of committing adultery with the school custodian’s wife, the court found that the words had not been uttered in the context of the school nor in reference to the...
- Legitimate inquiry regarding a student’s educational performance may be made by other teachers, school administrators within the same school or school districts, as well as by educational and employment agencies outside the school or school district proper. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) discussed above in this chapter, provides guidelines in this regard. At common law, a teacher is protected if communication is given in response to proper inquiry.
- Imputations against a teacher by the student press would be actionable if the teacher shows that the student publisher was at fault by directing the defamation toward the teacher. Similarly, students cannot attack other students or school administrators personally without potential consequences.
- In order for the privilege of the teacher or administrator to withstand challenge, the communication must have been made 1) in good faith, without malice, and within the scope of the students, teachers, or public’s interest in the good conduct of the school; 2) in the honest belief that the information conveyed was true, with knowledge that any communication brought about a student was made with reasonable, and probable grounds; and 3) in response to a legitimate inquiry by one with the right to know about a student’s educational or personal qualifications, the answer must not go beyond that which is required to satisfy the inquiry.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Student Gender Discrimination 57 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The necessity for a school district to show that it was not “deliberately indifferent” to a student claim of sexual harassment was demonstrated in a 2012 case from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, where the parents of a high school boy sued a school district under Title IX alleging that a female teacher had sexually harassed their son. The boy had dated the teacher’s daughter, was a frequent guest at the teacher’s house, and the teacher had shared a towel with the boy at a pool party and touched legs with him at her house. The court held that although the teacher’s conduct may have been inappropriate it was not sexual in nature so as to arise to the level required for Title IX damages. Moreover, the court held that although the school principal may have been aware of some of the interaction between the teacher and the boy, the principal and school district could not be found to be “deliberately indifferent.”
- a female student was sexually harassed by a teacher. The student said the teacher “. . . engaged in sexually-oriented conversations . . . forcibly kissed her on the mouth . . . [and] subjected her to coercive intercourse.” School officials were aware of the sexual harassment but took no action. The student filed an action against the school board for monetary damages and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to damages was implied under Title IX for intentional violations of the law. The Court noted that without money damages the student would basically have no remedy for her injury.
- In another example of a “deliberate indifference” case, a student was sexually abused by a teacher over a period of years and subsequently sued the school district. The principal had been told the offending teacher was a pedophile and advised to watch the teacher’s behavior. This warning had come from a former student who had been molested by the teacher. Later a librarian informed the principal he observed a student sitting on the teacher’s lap. The molesting teacher told the principal it was a “father-son chat.” The evidence was of such magnitude to indicate that the principal “. . . had constructive knowledge of the risk of sexual molestation but (had) acted with deliberate indifference”; therefore, money damages were allowed under
- The “deliberate indifference” test expanded on in was established by the Supreme Court in 1998 in
- Thus, in order to avoid liability for deliberate indifference, school officials must act quickly and decisively in instituting measures that will protect the victim of alleged sexual harassment, whether the situation involves sexual harassment allegations of teacher-to-student or peer student-to-peer student. The
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Freedom of Speech and Expression 121 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In another illustrative case, teachers went on strike and the school board employed replacement teachers. Children of the striking teachers arrived at school with buttons and stickers stating, “I’m not listening, scab” and “Do scabs bleed?” and were threatened with discipline. The court used and and ruled that in the absence of disruption, wearing of the emblems was constitutionally protected because the students’ actions were related to a political message which was of public concern and therefore fell under the protection of
- application, a fifth grader while in school, along with other students, was asked by a science teacher to write their wishes on the picture of an astronaut. The student wrote that he wished to “blow up the school with the teachers in it.” School officials also found that the student had earlier discipline problems, pushing and shoving in hallways, and had submitted art work and stories about guns and violence. The student was then suspended for one day in school and five days out of school. In upholding the suspension of the fifth grader, the Court said that
- Many of the student speech, expression and publication cases are clearly founded on parental guile and cunning employing children’s naiveté at the forum of the public school. An example is a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, where plaintiffs were parents on behalf of their children. In this instance, church pastors and parents in a fundamentalist church engaged high school students to “put God back in schools,” and one of their initiatives was to distribute 2,500 rubber fetus dolls at school to protest abortions. The school district had a policy that required preapproval of any non-school-sponsored material that was to be distributed on school grounds. The dolls were distributed at two high schools in the district. The fetus dolls were designed to be a realistic representation of a human fetus, and an attached card explained that it was the actual size and weight
- , one may ask what controls, if any, can reasonably be placed on students’ conduct. In
- Teachers and school administrators must be constantly on guard to recognize and prevent harm to students. The fact that student speech is protected complicates the problem of discerning an utterance of harmless speech from dangerous menace and warning of actual impending peril. Columbine, Paducah, Virginia Tech, Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Florida), and other tragedies are constant reminders. An utterance may with some certainty portend injury, or an utterance itself may inflict outrage or harm. Such speech by students can be restrained and prevented by actions of teachers and school administrators, without offending constitutional rights of the offending student.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Student Testing 39 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The administering of tests is considered to be a “discretionary” function of teachers and school administrators. As discussed elsewhere in this book, a “discretionary” function relies on choice and judgment, where, on the other hand, a “ministerial function” is a duty imposed by law or regulations requiring a specific action and does not permit the exercise of judgment by the teacher or administrator. With regard to testing of students, a state requirement that students be tested on a state-approved achievement test is a “ministerial duty”; however, teachers and test proctors have “discretion” as to when and if an emergency exists that would permit a student test taker to leave and return to the room while the test was being administered.
- Reluctance of the Courts to substitute their judgments for those of teachers, administrators, and publicly elected school board members is a basic tenet of judicial philosophy, even though examples to the contrary are legion. The enunciated policy of nonintervention by the courts, however, normally remains the rule where schools act rationally pursuant to a legitimate academic purpose and a fundamental constitutional right of a student is not denied. For a student to sustain a claim against a school board for academic decisions such as denial of promotion because of failure on tests or grades, the student must document a cognizable constitutional loss. A student’s mere showing that he or she was not promoted does not constitute such a loss.
- “Under such circumstances, we decline to ignore the historic judgment of educators and thereby formalize the academic dismissal process by requiring a hearing. The educational process is not by nature adversary; instead, it centers around a continuing relationship between faculty and students, ‘one in which the teacher must occupy many roles—educator, adviser, friend, and, at times, parent-substitute.’ . . . In , this Court concluded that the value of some form of hearing in a disciplinary context outweighs any resulting harm to the academic environment. Influencing this conclusion was clearly the belief that disciplinary proceedings in which the teacher must decide whether to punish a student for disruptive or insubordinate behavior may automatically bring an adversary flavor to the normal student-teacher relationship. The same conclusion does not follow in the academic context. We decline to further enlarge the judicial presence in the academic community and thereby risk...
- Pupil evaluation is essential to the conduct of schools, and testing is considered to be an appropriate means of determining educational effectiveness of the school and the achievement of the pupil. Unless the school enunciates a level of academic attainment for the student and measures student progress toward that level, “no certification of graduation can have any meaning whatsoever.”
- The Supreme Court in
- Open Chapter
Introduction 5 results
- This Seventh Edition is designed as a textbook for undergraduate and graduate courses of study in teacher education and school leadership in colleges of education. The content also provides a concise summation of the legal landscape for lawyers who serve as school board attorneys, and for professors who teach education law in universities. In direct and non-technical terms the book explains the prevailing law as it governs the operation of America’s public schools. As we all know, professional personnel in today’s public schools are to a great extent reluctant recipients of the legal overburden emanating from our litigious society. Parents and students frequently see the school in a legalistic adversarial context that is obviously contrary to the cooperative community perspective originally envisioned for the common schools. In spite of these limitations endemic to our modern social existence, school teachers and administrators very effectively carry forward the essential common...
- Attention is further devoted to the rights of teachers as protected by various statutory and constitutional provisions. The terms and conditions of the teacher’s employment relations with the school board are fully explained, encompassing contracts, tenure, and processes for dismissal, including incompetence, insubordination, neglect of duty, moral turpitude, etc. In particular, civil rights legislation is discussed with appropriate attention given to teacher employment rights as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes, including Title IX, that protect teachers against gender, age, and disability discrimination. Any book about education law would be remiss if it did not fully explain the potential for civil liability that accompanies employment as a teacher or school administrator; this book pays special attention to that topic. Also, a good reading of the tort chapters will give the practitioner a healthy respect for common law and statutory...
- While the encumbrances of the manifold laws and regulations that flow down upon the public schools from both state and federal governments seem at times to be excessive and not always necessary, by-in-large these laws have worked well to benefit both the children who partake of education and the teachers who are the purveyors of vast stores of knowledge and skills. The network of these laws ultimately bestows upon the next generation, usufruct, the abilities and capacities that enable each fledgling citizen to obtain personal autonomy and to understand, value, and defend basic liberties and freedoms.
- The pages of this book explain in simplified non-legalese the laws that protect children, enhance their learning opportunities, and assure teachers of the academic autonomy and security to pursue the teaching profession without incursion of undue restraint. As a practical guide to the legal aspects of public schools, this book includes explanations of laws that govern such important issues as student rights and prerogatives pertaining to compulsory attendance, pupil suspension and expulsion, discipline, child abuse, personal appearance, academic testing and grading, drug testing, search and seizure, freedom of speech, publications, records, and religious observances. Too, importantly, the emerging law of social media, i.e., cyberbullying, is explained in detail. Considerable attention is given to the federal and state statutes and court decisions having to do with education of children with disabilities and the various aspects of the laws
- All projects of this nature are dependent on the support of a few key players. With this book Michele Hill was the indispensable person who managed the entire undertaking of manuscript preparation. Her scheduling, editing and research skills were essential, indeed critical, to the entire process. We are further very much indebted to Sara Hoke who provided ready assistance and support throughout the preparation and production of the book. Too, we wish to extend our profound appreciation to Dr. Melinda Robinett, Special Education Consultant and former director of several Special Education Programs for school divisions in Virginia, who rendered valuable writing and review of litigation for this book pertaining specifically to the education of children with disabilities. Her expertise and insights regarding this important aspect of education were essential to our interpretations. Finally, we wish to express our thanks to Louis Higgins, Mac Soto, Greg Olson, and Laura Holle of West...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Education of Children with Disabilities 103 results (showing 5 best matches)
- H.R. 1350, and several key provisions were added; among these were: 1) Schools must provide a child with a free appropriate public education in the interim but can conduct an evaluation of a child who transfers from out-of-state before becoming required to adopt the current IEP or craft a new IEP; 2) Where parents refuse to provide consent for an initial evaluation of their child, the school is relieved of the obligation to provide a free appropriate public education consisting of special education and related services to the child because of the parents refusal to provide consent for the evaluation; 3) Parents have a two-year limitation for filing of IDEA due process complaints; 4) Parents or the school district has 90 days under federal law to appeal an adverse decision of a hearing officer, or the time as stated in state law; 5) School districts must provide parents with notice of their and their child’s rights once a year, including the procedure for filing a due process...
- The IEP statement describing the child’s educational goals and specifying required services is developed by a multidisciplinary team. The IEP team must have as members an individual who can provide or supervise the provision of special education services, is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and division resources, the child’s teacher(s), a special educator, parents, the student, if appropriate, other person(s) qualified to interpret evaluation results, and additional individuals, invited by the school division or parent, who have information concerning the student, inclusive of related service personnel, as appropriate. Because the IEP must be jointly prepared by school staff and parents and reviewed annually, a condition of possible contention is staged. Contests between parents and school districts over the nature of the IEP have created a plethora of disability litigation in recent years, all of which have begun to form a formidable body of case law.
- IDEA gives children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The key to meeting the requirements of IDEA is to determine what constitutes an appropriate education. In the most authoritative statement yet made in interpretation of IDEA, the United States Supreme Court in
- The IDEA contains a pendency of review provision that prohibits school authorities from unilaterally excluding a child with a disability from school during review proceedings to determine the placement of the student. Section 1415(j) of the act states that “the child shall remain in the then current educational placement” until proper placement can be determined. This so-called stay-put provision raises the question as to whether a child can be excluded from school for an indefinite period of time for dangerous or disruptive conduct resulting from a disability. In , the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the issue by making it clear that the IDEA 1) confers a substantive right to education for students with disabilities, 2) prohibits school officials from unilaterally excluding a student with a disability from the classroom for dangerous or disruptive conduct for an indeterminate period of time where conduct grows out of a disability, and 3) permits school officials to temporarily suspend...
- Manifestation determinations are essential to “stay-put” considerations when student discipline is an issue. In cases of discipline the decision as to whether the offense by a student is a manifestation of a disability is essential. A manifestation review by an IEP team is required if a school wants to remove a student to an alternative educational setting in excess of 10 days. The IEP team determines the conduct to be a manifestation of the student’s disability if the behavior was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability or if the behavior was the direct result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP. Should the team decide that the offending behavior is not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the disciplinary action taken against the student with a disability can be the same as that applied to the student without a disability. Offenses related to drugs and weapons are a special category as provided under IDEA. A student with...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. Terms and Conditions of Teacher Employment 73 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A board may require a teacher to establish residency in the school district. In recent years, urban school districts have utilized this authority to prevent mass movement of teachers out to the suburbs. Teachers have challenged the residency requirements as violation of their liberty rights. The courts have upheld the policies as rational. The courts have accepted the school boards’ rationale that teachers who live in the district have a better understanding of the students and the community and, therefore, are more likely to be committed to the school district and more involved in community activities. They also would be local taxpayers and, therefore, more personally interested in the quality of education offered in the districts. Some school districts have established policies that allow teachers who lived outside of the district prior to the implementation date of the residency policy to be exempt from the policy. These “grandfather” provisions have been attacked by new teachers...
- Only a school board may make a valid offer to contract with a teacher. The offer has to be made to the teacher and within a reasonable time; the teacher may only accept the offer that has been tendered. If a school board tenders an offer for a specific salary and the teacher accepts the offer but requests the salary be increased, then there is no valid offer and there cannot be a valid acceptance. In essence, the teacher has made a counter offer. There has been no meeting of the minds as to conditions and terms of the contract; thus, no contract can be formed without further action by the school board.
- Teaching certificates, therefore, may be annulled, but only for serious offenses that are detrimental to students or the teaching profession. There must be a between the outside activity and the performance of teaching duties. The general rule of law is that a teacher cannot be dismissed for behavior of nonschool activity unless such activity can be shown to be detrimental to the conduct of the school. For example, where a female teacher was convicted of first degree criminal mischief for ramming her car into the car of her husband’s lover, the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled for the teacher, holding that the conviction did not “render (the teacher) unqualified to perform her professional duties” because her crime did not bear a demonstrable relationship to her ability to perform school duties. There was no nexus. Absent a link or nexus the state licensing agency is without authority to remove certification from a teacher.
- A school board generally has the authority to transfer and assign teachers to best benefit the educational program of the school district. Such assignments are contingent on the certification of the teacher. If a teacher is certified to teach in the primary grades, then the teacher may only be assigned to primary courses. A teacher has no right to demand a particular grade or teaching position within a school district. A local board may adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding transfer, but once established they cannot be violated. To transfer a teacher for purposes of punishment or to make life so uncomfortable as to force the teacher’s resignation is, of course, considered to be arbitrary and violative of the teacher’s rights.
- After the Great Recession of 2008, state and local funding of public schools diminished dramatically and there was a surfeit of teacher layoffs. This necessitated a corresponding reduction in the number of professional employees. As mentioned previously, teachers and other professionals who have acquired tenure may be dismissed for reasonable cause only. Where there are declining funds, teachers may be laid-off as a result of a work force reduction. Legitimate reduction in force may be caused by direct fiscal reorganization, or elimination of positions or programs. Most state laws provide local school boards the flexibility to reduce the work force due to “financial exigency.” The local school board has within its discretion the authority to adopt procedures to reduce the work force, absent contractual obligations created by statutory or collective bargaining agreements.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Due Process Rights of Students 106 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The courts have generally held that hearsay evidence is admissible in a formal school disciplinary hearing. In the leading case on the subject, a school principal read before the school board statements made by teachers regarding a student’s conduct. The board in using this evidence ultimately suspended eight students for a week and expelled eight for their part in a school boycott. The students maintained that the information was hearsay and could not be used as a basis for dismissal. The court disagreed saying:
- The Supreme Court has, however, been increasingly reluctant in recent years to expand the concept of substantive due process and has prescribed a standard that requires the invoking of substantive due process only if the governmental action is so invasive and arbitrary as to be “conscience shocking.” Conscience shocking poses a very high legal standard.
- The value of cross-examining student witnesses in school disciplinary cases, however, is somewhat muted by the fact that the veracity of a student account of misconduct by another student is initially assessed by . . . the school principal who has, or has available to him, a particularized knowledge of the student’s trustworthiness. The school administrator generally knows firsthand (or has access to school records which disclose) the accusing student’s disciplinary history, which can serve as a valuable gauge in evaluating the believability of the student’s account. Additionally, the school administrator often knows, or can readily discover, whether the student witness and the accused have had an amicable relationship in the past. Consequently, the process of cross-examining the student witness may often be merely duplicative of the evaluation process undertaken by the investigating school administrator. The value of cross-examining student witnesses in pre-expulsion proceedings...
- However, rulings on the admissibility of hearsay in a student hearing do vary considerably. Examples are as follows: Student was not denied procedural due process when the school district failed to reveal the identity of a fellow student who had reported that the student had cut herself.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, explained “conscience shocking” as official conduct of public school administrators or teachers in disciplining students that is “arbitrary” and “egregious.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Attendance in Public Schools 107 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The legal competence of the state to compel children to attend school is well established, but the power of the state is not unlimited. The state, for example, cannot require attendance solely in public schools. In
- Schools must extend to homeless students the same access, free appropriate public education, as to other children. Education of the homeless student must continue in the student’s “school of origin” or the school district must enroll the student in a school that is attended by other students in the same attendance zone. Importantly, the federal law requires that a homeless student must be immediately admitted to the school of the student’s choice, pending resolution of a dispute. Schools must notify homeless parents of their child’s statutory rights under ESSA’s school choice provisions. By virtue of the McKinney-Vento Act, homeless students have a private right of action to enforce its provisions. This means that an action in damages may lie against a school district that denies this statutory right to a homeless student. In addition to legal action under the Act, homeless students and parents
- With the ongoing immigration debate in the United States gaining momentum and complexity, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice in 2011 issued a letter of guidance for school districts in the enrollment of undocumented students. After explaining that prohibits states from denying access to public schools to any students in residence in a state, and that public school attendance is irrelevant as to the undocumented status of a student or a parent, the letter says that school districts should not inquire into the immigration or citizenship status of a student or parent as a criterion for establishing whether the student is a resident of the school district. The school can require a birth certificate, but cannot deny attendance based on the fact that the
- The court in North Dakota, , set a precedent almost precisely opposite that of in Ohio. Here defendant parents were convicted of violating compulsory attendance laws for sending their children to a church-affiliated private school which was not approved by the state. The school had no certified teachers and employed a widely used self-study curriculum made up of a series of Bible-oriented learning packets. The school showed, as was the case in , that the students of the private school scored higher on achievement tests than did their counterparts in public schools.
- Exemption from compulsory attendance to attend private schools is a right of all parents protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied in
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Chapter 9. Racial Segregation 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Thus, if diversity is a goal, school districts should seek to achieve a student body in each school that reflects “talents, experiences and potential,” not just race of the entire student population. Some of these “holistic” elements might be grades, travel, language, and/or income level of family. Income and wealth are not suspect classes as are race and ethnicity; therefore, there is no constitutional prohibition on balancing student enrollments based on the students categorized by percentages of free and reduced-price lunches. The rule of law is that where a school district desires to create greater student body diversity in each of its schools, then it must not do so by reassigning students based on race or ethnicity but by creating a mosaic of student attributes that it wishes to define as for school assignments.
- One device used to circumvent the effects of was to close the public schools, to provide vouchers for students to attend private schools, and to give parents “freedom of choice” for their children’s schools. When this method of maintaining segregation was challenged, the Supreme Court held that the ill effects of such a system bore more heavily on African-American students because the white students had access to accredited private schools while the African-American children did not. Thus, the Court concluded that to close public schools and contribute tax funds for students to attend, by means of vouchers, segregated private schools was a violation of equal protection.
- Narrow tailoring is terminology that has come into frequent usage by the U.S. Supreme Court when it examines state action that might impinge on a constitutional interest. Narrow tailoring seeks to permit government latitude to achieve a particular objective without diminishing individual constitutional rights or interests. With regard to race, the Court, as explained in , was troubled by affirmative action policies that favor one person over another simply because of the color of their skin. As the Supreme Court became more conservative with the appointees of Reagan and the Bushes, there has become discernibly less concern for the correction of historical racial discrimination. The Supreme Court today effectively discourages governmentally prescribed affirmative action policies, but does acknowledge that diversity is a permissible goal of school districts if it is not simply pursued to mix the races, and if the policies used to promote diversity are “narrowly tailored.” What legal...
- The diversity policy of the school must be based on an amalgam, composite, or blend of related attributes calibrated to enhance learning experiences of students—a mosaic if you will. While race and ethnicity can be considerations in that mosaic, they cannot be the nor the criterion on which the movement of students among schools is based. In short, the Supreme Court has said in the controlling and cases that constitutional policies must be narrowly tailored and designed to achieve their “asserted goal of fostering educational and broader socialization benefits through a racially diverse learning environment.” School districts cannot constitutionally justify policies that simply move children around based on racial classifications.
- Therefore, diversity remains a compelling and constitutional state interest if a public school district believes that such is in the educational interests of the students. However, in achieving those interests, race and ethnicity can only be considered if the means to that end is “narrowly tailored.” This means that school attendance zones in public schools cannot establish “quotas” for members of different racial groups. Quotas are defined as fixed numbers or proportions and cannot be reserved exclusively for certain groups of individuals representing suspect classes. However, it should be noted that “income” and “wealth” are not suspect classes; therefore, students may be zoned and bused based on personal income or family wealth, which are legitimate if utilized to help achieve diversity of school enrollments.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Religion in Public Schools and State Funding of Clerical Schools 92 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , the City of New York devised release-time program in which students were released from public schools during the school day to attend religious services off school grounds. A period was set aside each week when students could leave the public school grounds to go to a church or church school to attend religious services. The program was entirely optional, the school authorities were neutral, and teachers did no more than release the students when so requested by parents. In upholding this plan the U.S. Supreme Court said that the state could accommodate religion without aiding religion, and it would too severely “press the concept of separation of Church and State” to condemn this New York law where the state assistance was so minimal. Accordingly, in this instance, for government to fail to accommodate this type of release-time plan would constitute callousness toward religion which is not required by the First Amendment.
- The aforementioned decision, 1968, left many questions as to the limits of public funding for parochial schools. Justice White’s majority opinion had applied two tests to gauge the constitutionality of statutes with provisions to fund religious schools: 1) there must be a and 2) the legislative enactment cannot in 1947. As observed above, the Court in found that to loan textbooks to parochial schools did not violate either of these two tests. Subsequently, several state legislatures enacted laws that were thought to be within the constitutional boundaries of the two tests. However, at least two states, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, enacted laws that reached beyond Allen and provided textbooks, instructional materials, and teacher salaries for Catholic schools. This resulted in the emergence of another Supreme Court case, , which added a third prong to the constitutionality test, ...The opinion of the Court was authored by Chief Justice Burger, who pointed out that a “given law...
- The Supreme Court in striking down the practice said that state tax-supported facilities could not be used to disseminate religious doctrines whether it aided only one or all religions. According to the Court, there existed too close a cooperation in that 1) the weight and influence of the public school was cast behind a program for religious instruction, 2) public school teachers provided the attendance accounting and policed the process, 3) the school kept track of students who were released, and 4) the normal classroom activities came to a halt. For these reasons the practice was held to violate the First Amendment.
- Thus, where a school permits the use of school facilities for various non-curricular clubs, religious and civic organizations, access must be provided to all without regard to content of their messages. The Equal Access Act, in tandem with Supreme Court interpretations of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, effectively utilizes the access theory to override earlier tenets of separation of church and state that had prohibited use of public school facilities for inculcation of religion. The Equal Access Act, however, by its very breadth, has resulted in certain unintended consequences that the conservative Congress that enacted the law probably did not foresee. One example is a case where a student group, Straight and Gays for Equality (SAGE), sought access to school facilities, including the school’s public address system, yearbook, and other forms of communication. In spite of the fact that the Equal Access Act does not require a school to provide a forum for student...
- The Equal Access Act prohibits public school districts receiving federal money, and allowing non-curricular activities and club meetings, to deny secondary school students the right to meet in public school facilities for religious and/or other purposes. The Equal Access Act states in pertinent part: “It shall be unlawful for any public school which receives federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings (emphasis added).” Thus, according to this statute, when a school district allows clubs and organizations that are not directly curriculum related to meet in school facilities, then the school has created a . When such a forum is created the public school cannot deny other student-initiated groups, whether religious,...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18. Employment Discrimination 109 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Employees’ work schedules have also come in conflict with religious worship in other cases. In one such case a teacher was dismissed because of absence from the job, without permission, to attend a religious festival. The teacher had arranged for a substitute teacher, instructed the substitute on lesson plans, and so on, and the classes had in fact run very smoothly. The court determined that to accommodate the teacher resulted in no undue hardship to the school and rendered judgment for the teacher.
- If a teacher establishes a case of discrimination, the school board must show that its rationale for the employment decision was based on nondiscriminatory reasons. Where a school board defended its decision not to promote a black female teacher on the subjective factors of her “lack of interpersonal and management skills which are necessary for an administrator to have” as well as “abrasive” personality, the court found that these reasons “articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons” for the board’s decision. If a plaintiff establishes by direct evidence that an employer acted with discriminatory intent, the defense will fail unless the employer can show “that the same decision would have been reached absent illegal motive.”
- , several lower courts invalidated the use of the Graduate Record Examination and the National Teachers Examination because the examinations were not job related. School districts, in these instances, were unable to shoulder the burden of showing job relatedness in the face of the high percentage of black teachers who were disqualified. Under , once the plaintiff shows, under Title VII, that the effect or impact of an employment practice is the cause of racial imbalance, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify the particular practice by showing that the imbalance is justified in terms of job requirements.
- Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (1986)
- The Supreme Court has provided some guidance as to the boundaries between affirmative action and reverse discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. In
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 598 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Hunterdon Central High School Board of Ed. v. Hunterdon Central High School Teachers’ Ass’n, 597
- California Teachers Association v. Oxnard School District, 563
- American Federation of Teachers-West Virginia, AFL-CIO v. Kanawha County Board of Education, 595
- Massachusetts Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education, 542
- Teacher Standards and Practices Commission v. Bergerson, 544
- Open Chapter
WEST ACADEMIC PUBLISHING’S EMERITUS ADVISORY BOARD 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Dean and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Chair of Public Interest LawUniversity of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
- Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of LawVillanova University Charles Widger School of Law
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Dean & Chancellor Professor of LawWilliam & Mary Law School
- LAW SCHOOL ADVISORY BOARD
- Open Chapter
Outline 135 results (showing 5 best matches)
- § 5.52Tax Credits and Deductions for Students in Catholic and Other Clerical Schools
- § 5.31Public Transportation forParochial School Students
- Religion in Public Schools and State Funding of Clerical Schools
- § 17.9Social Media and Teacher Speech
- § 12.79Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001
- Open Chapter
Index 107 results (showing 5 best matches)
Copyright Page 4 results
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- and the Nutshell Logo are trademarks registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
- West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic are trademarks of West Publishing Corporation, used under license.
- Printed in the United States of America
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: May 4th, 2022
- ISBN: 9781636593005
- Subject: Education Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This text captures the key points of the precedents governing student rights and responsibilities relating to attendance, speech, expression, religion, discipline, grades, tests, drugs, search and seizure, the emerging law of social media, i.e., cyberbullying, and the range of procedural due process interests. The book further addresses the range of constitutional rights and protections for teachers as well as employment terms and conditions, including contracts, tenure and potential liabilities.