Education Law

As of tomorrow, public school students in Connecticut can no longer receive out of school suspensions unless they pose a danger to persons or property or they are so disruptive of the educational process that the suspension must be served outside of school.  They may receive in school suspension for up to 10 days for violating school rules.

When signing the bill into law, Governor Rell made clear that the intent is to make sure that students are only removed from school in the most exceptional circumstances.

Under the previous law students could be suspended for breaking a publicized rule of the school board and, in fact, about 77,000 Connecticut students received out of school suspensions in 2005-2006.

Additional information about the bill can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Is this new law a good one?  Will it bring down the number of suspensions and keep kids in school?

Do you remember your grade school report card?  How did you rate on “listens to and follows directions” “respects property” “complies with rules” or “accepts responsibility”? 

According to a report provided to the Fairfax County School Boardin Fairfax County, Virginia, how kids rate in these types of subjective “sound moral character and ethical judgment” areas may, in part, have something to do with their race and abilities.  The report found that Black, Hispanic and students with disabilities in the early grades tended to have lower scores than White non-disabled students.

As the country seeks to prepare a 21st century workforce and emphasis is placed on character education in general and social and emotional skills in particular, school officials need to take care that these skills are measured in as objective a way as possible.   

School districts need to “accept responsibility” and make sure that the standards of measuring moral character and ethical judgment are fair and that they are fairly enforced.  They also need to be careful about labels and make sure that no group of students is unfairly labeled by a subjective report.

It seems that much is happening in the world of education law this week.  I’ve had trouble deciding what to post about first because it all seems so terribly important and relevant.  Rest assured, my friends, that I will cover many of the topics in the coming weeks.  But, in order, to at least point out some of the more interesting and important (and in some cases disturbing) recent developments, I am going to point you in the direction of some really well written education law blogs.

First, we have Charles Fox talking about a Virginia school district report in which special education students and non white minority students have lower character ratings according to their teachers.

Next, take a look at Justin Bathon’s post on the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in three education cases.

Finally, consider Mark Walsh’s post about the homeschooling case being reheard by a California Appeals Court.  He has lots of links to news articles and briefs in this closely watched case.

You’ve probably heard the news by now.  17 female students who attend Gloucester High School in Gloucester, Massachusetts became pregnant this year.  The principal says it was part of pact - the girls would all get pregnant and help each other with the babies.  The mayor says there was no pact.

The issue of whether there was or was not a pact is a separate issue, in my opinion, that should make us talk about peer pressure, influence and teen mentality.  Yet, regardless of whether there was a pact 17 girls are pregnant and school officials are seemingly under fire. 

So, here’s my question.  How much responsibility do school officials bear for these pregnancies?  They certainly have the responsibility to educate the pregnant students and new moms but is it a failure of the school system that led these girls to get pregnant?  Should the school have any legal or moral responsibility for this?

According to Time Magazine, the school nurse began advocating prescription birth control for Gloucester high school girls without parental consent.  She resigned in protest.  Did she have the right idea or was she overstepping her role?

In my opinion, the Gloucester situation raises a lot of questions that education officials must answer.  What are your thoughts? How should Gloucester, and other cities and towns, answer these questions?

The Governor of Massachusetts has unveiled part of his education plan today. This part includes universal Prekindergarten for students in the Commonwealth, full day Kindergarten across the Commonwealth and a drop out prevention program.

The biggest concern surrounding Governor Patrick’s plan is how it will be funded.  The Governor announced the formation of a special commission to help with the funding issues but will it be enough?  Will school districts be able to implement the new mandates?

Governor Patrick has been quoted as saying that budget concerns should not be a factor when discussing how to best prepare children for success.  Is this realistic?

In my opinion, the Governor has a lot of good ideas that would improve education for Massachusetts’ students.  However, I am concerned about any plan that delays the discussion of the money necessary to implement the plan.  Plans are only effective if they are implemented and that takes money.

What are your thoughts?

Let’s face it.  The amount of money available to provide services to students with disabilities is a big factor in the types and amounts of services the students receive.

In Pennsylvania, the state Department of Education assumes that 16% of the students in every school district are eligible for special education and provide special education funds based on that number. 

The Community Justice Project, a legal advocacy organization in Harrisburg, has filed a lawsuit based on Pennsylvania’s special education funding formula.  They argue that some districts such as Lancaster have high numbers of special education students while others such as the Mars Area school district have very low numbers. According to Pennlive.com, the special education enrollment in Lancaster is about 25% of the student body while it is only about 5% in the Mars Area School District.

The Community Justice Project attorneys argue that this funding formula results in an inequitable distribution of funds for Pennsylvania’s special education students.

The Court hasn’t ruled yet in this case and the Department of Education isn’t saying much about it. What do you think?  Is the Pennsylvania funding system fair?  Is there a better way?

It’s Wednesday, so it’s politician day here on Education Law. 

Whether or not Senator Clinton is chosen as Senator Obama’s vice presidential candidate, she will continue to have an influential role in the Senate.  She sits on the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

 As a presidential candidate, Senator Clinton supported universal preschool.  She planned to address the problem of drop outs and to make college more affordable for American families.  She pledged to end No Child Left Behind and to help make schools greener.  She supports adequate funding for quality after school programs.

For more about Senator Clinton’s views please visit her website.

Last January, the New York Department of Education informed school districts that they may not provide special education services to homeschooled students.

Now, the state legislature is reconsidering that position with a bill that was drafted by the NY Department of Education in consultation with homeschooling parents and advocacy organizations.

New York Senate Bill S7490Awould give homeschool students the same rights to special ed services as students enrolled in private schools.  The Assembly has introduced a similar, although not identical, bill.

Homeschool families who have students with special needs plan to lobby the New York Assembly today to try and get a the Senate bill passed and allow services to provided to students.

What are your feelings on this bill?  Should homeschool students be able to receive special education services from the public school?

The Washington Post had an interesting article about single sex classes today.  That, and the Edjurist’s post on the subject last week has got me thinking.

In 2002, No Child Left Behind called single gender classes an innovative tool in improving educational achievement.  In 2006, federal regulations were changed to allow schools to separate the genders as long as the separation was voluntary and substantially equal.

Many public schools, including charter schools in Boston and public schools in the Washington D.C. area, now have single gender classrooms.

While my previous posts have been more of the informative or how to protect your rights nature, I am stepping out of that box today.  I feel strongly that the Supreme Court was correct in its reasoning in Brown v. Board of Education and that separate is inherently unequal.  That should be true whether we are talking about race or gender. 

In my opinion, separating the genders for limited activities such as sex education is a good idea.  Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other activities separated by gender serve legitimate purposes and I would be proud to have my kids participate in them.  I did as a kid and I am better for it as an adult.

However, I do not, not even a little bit, support single gender classes in public education.  We need to teach our boys and girls how to operate in a coeducational world.  We need to understand that, in public education, separate is unequal.

Proponents argue that boys and girls learn differently and that teachers can better accommodate their learning styles in single sex classrooms.  I am all for differentiated and individualized instruction.  However, not all girls learn the same way and not all boys learn the same way.  In order to make the most of individualized instruction, educators need to focus on the whole student and not just the student’s gender. 

That is not to say that private schools can not have different standards.  They can and they should but in public education, math, science, English and history should be a coeducational experience.  Uniform standards and teacher qualifications will not make separate be equal.

So, to answer my own question…yes, apparently, right now single sex classroom are legal. However, the ACLU is challenging their legality.  Stay tuned to see if single sex classrooms will remain legal. 

Please feel free to leave comments and let me know what you think.

I heard a story on the local news last night about a town that will be implementing a teacher dress code for the 2008-2009 school year.  The town does not currently have a dress code for teachers.  However, it does have a dress code for students.  Students have been complaining to their parents and administrators that teachers are wearing flip flops and spaghetti strap tops to school - clothes that violate the student dress code.

It seems logical to me that teachers should be held to the same dress standards as students and that a properly crafted dress code for teachers is probably legal.  Like any school policy, administrators need to be sure to craft a clear and reasonable policy that is applied fairly.  The administrators also needs to take into account the realities of school life.  Physical education teachers need to be dressed for athletic activities and elementary school teachers need to be in clothes that are comfortable enough to get down on the floor with their students.  However, if flip flops and spaghetti straps are prohibited for students they should also be prohibited for teachers.