Principals conference 2013 [compatibility mode]
-
Upload
ksb-school-law -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Principals conference 2013 [compatibility mode]
Too Much? Not enough? How the Legal Requirements for Principals Leave You Feeling Like Goldilocks
Karen A. HaaseBobby Truhe
Harding & Shultz(402) 434-3000
H & S School Law@KarenHaase
@btruhe
Child Custody Disputes Refuse to offer opinions (and train staff
to do the same) Decline interviews with attorneys Strictly observer FERPA
• Signed release by bio parent• Subpoena (must follow procedures first)• Personal knowledge vs. resort to records
Child Custody Orders Politely Refuse to Accept or Review School district not bound by orders
in cases they’re not a party in Unless
• Supervised visitation• Termination of parental rights• Even if judge orders “the school”
to do something
Access to Student Records State Section 42-381 – both parents continue to
have “full and equal access” to education records unless court orders to contrary
Federal FERPA: Non-custodial parents have same
rights as custodial Unless there is evidence of a legally binding
document that specifically revokes rights (34 C.F.R. 99.4)
Release of Children Pauley v. Anchorage School Dist., 31
P.3d 1284 (Alaska 2001) Exercise your own independent
judgment about safety of student Do not promise to do something that
the school won’t actually do
Truancy
Legislative Action on TruancyGroups Expressing Concern
• Family Forum• Douglas County Board• NE Assn. of County Officials• NE Taxpayers for Freedom• Heartland Workers Center• John Sieler: State BOE• Douglas County: 3,000 cases per year
Truancy: laws, they are a changin’?
Legislative Action on Truancy Reform Proposals
• Repeal truancy laws• No reporting excused absences• Parents have greater role in excusing Ss
Legislation Coming• No. of students truant down from 7.8%
to 5.8% after passage of new law• But daily figures constant for 15 yrs.
The Disruptive SpEd Student
Least Restrictive Environment
SpEd students must be placed in Least Restrictive Environment Determined by IEP team Restrictions permitted to meet
• Disabled child’s needs• Needs of child’s peers
No entitlement to regular school day Restrictive placement is not discipline
Discipline SpEd students may be disciplined First 10 days “free” After 10 days, must make
“manifestation determination”• MDT team makes decision• Was misconduct “caused by, or had a
direct and substantial relationship to, the student’s disability”
Discipline (con’t)
If misconduct IS manifestation• no discipline • but IEP may be changed to address
If misconduct IS NOT manifestation• may be punished like regular ed.• but “interim alternative educational
setting” Drugs, weapons, serious injury
Discipline Flow ChartStudent’s
misbehaviorDoes studenthave an IEP?
NoDoes incidenttrigger needfor a referral?
NoUse reg.disciplineprocedures
BehaviorIntervention
Plan?
Yes
>10 daysconsecutively?
Make referralYes
and ask
>10 dayscumulatively?
No No
No
Yes
Yes
YesPlan functional
behaviorassessment
Pattern ofexclusion?
No
Yes
Is behavior amanifestation?
and askWas FAPEprovided?
No and Yes
Yes
Yes NoUse IEP procedures
Search and Seizure Principals may search students
when they have “reasonable suspicion” that school rules violatedMake that determination on your
own (not after talking with police)
Determining Reasonableness
In order for a search to be reasonable, a school official must satisfy two separate inquiries:Was the search justified at its inception?Was the scope of the search
appropriate?
Locker Searches
• Handbook should designate locker as school property
• Still need reasonable suspicion to search containers in the locker
Lockers
Iowa v. Jones, (Ia. 2003)
Reasonable at inception
Reasonable in scope
Cell Phones/iPads/Kindles/etc.
Dealing with Cell Phones Confiscation doesn’t raise 4th Amend. Looking in phone does (Klump v.
Nazareth Area School District) But that doesn’t mean you can’t do it
(J.W. v. DeSoto County School District) ALWAYS ASK 1:1 devices are district property – no
search
Car Searches
The School’s Jurisdiction J.P. v. Millard Public Schools Nebraska Supreme Court (2013) J.P. drove his truck to school Parked on street across from school J.P. left school w/o permission; lied Asst. Principal investigated Had J.P. empty his pockets - nothing J.P. refused to permit truck search
J.P. v. Millard Asst. Prin. searched about 10 min. Found drug pipes and zig zag papers Student handbook prohibited
possession of drug paraphernalia J.P. suspended for 19 days District Court: search of truck
violated 4th amendment Supreme Court: affirmed Dist. Ct.
Nebraska Supreme Court Authority to search implied by the
Student Discipline Act School officials have authority to
regulate conduct on school grounds Parking off school grounds was not
a school-sponsored event School officials can report suspected
off-campus conduct to the police
Too Much? Not enough? How the Legal Requirements for Principals Leave You Feeling Like Goldilocks
Karen A. HaaseBobby Truhe
Harding & Shultz(402) 434-3000
H & S School Law@KarenHaase
@btruhe