Case In Point

Wow!  I just realized that it’s been a few weeks since last I wrote.   I also realized there are only 22 days until Thanksgiving Break and only 37 days until Christmas Break.  Many of us are already doing Christmas shopping, and for me this year, that involves ordering most things online so that I can ship them to my family members since I won’t make it home this year.  Fortunately for me, my sister-in-law is home during the day so I can have FedEx, UPS, USPS etc. deliver right to her (she assures me she won’t open until Christmas!).  But for many of us who work during the day, ordering something and having it delivered to work is a wonderful convenience.  The packages are safe from weather, neighborhood dogs, or dishonest neighbors that might choose to “shop” for free at our doorstep. 

However, recent events cause me to discuss with you concerns around packages and parcels delivered to your school or site address.  One issue that I will address later with a specific release form that all employees will be asked to sign, revolves around the liability issue that schools/sites are placed under regarding damaged, lost, or stolen personal items.   More on this at a later date……..

A more worrisome event recently took place in one of our buildings that I want to address here today.  A package was delivered addressed to a specific employee and with the school address.  This happened to be an order placed on behalf of a department for some office supplies.  This package was not delivered to the employee whose name was on the box, but was instead deliberately opened by other employees in that building.  As I’ve become involved in this situation, I’ve learned that there is a belief that since the box was delivered to a WORK address it was fair game (several people have said this to me) and that no “reasonable expectation of privacy” should have existed on the part of the person placing the order since this was a school purchase.

Those assumptions are WRONG!     Article 18, Section 1702 of the United States Code (federal law) specifically addresses this issue:  

Obstruction of Correspondence (also known as mail tampering)

“ Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter (such as a school/site mail room or mail storage area), or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

As you can see, the law doesn’t go on to say, “unless delivered to a public school or business address, or because a person thought they had a good reason to open the package etc etc”.  It simply says that you can’t open someone else’s mail.  Period.  End of Discussion.  Well almost end of discussion….I can think of two possible exceptions:

(1)  Hopefully this will never happen but, if you had “reasonable suspicion” that the package contained something of an illegal nature, ie drugs, alcohol, weapons, pornographic materials, DON”T OPEN THE PACKAGE because then the person could alwyas say that you placed the illegal item in the box.  Instead here would be the appropriate process:  (1) secure the package in question, (2) have the person to whom the package is addressed present, (3) have a police officer present, (4) say something like, “I have reasonable suspicion to believe that this package contains items of an illegal nature.  Would you please open the package?”  If your suspicion is accurate, the police will take over at that point regarding the items, and then you would place a call to Human Resources regarding the appropriate steps to take with the employee.   If your suspicion is inaccurate, but was reasonable based on the information you had at the time, there is no liability that can attach to you under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.  I would suggest that, as you are receiving the information leading to this reasonable suspicion, (1) document, (2) call me for legal advice (3) discuss with police, (4) call HR for guidance etc.

(2)  A much more likely scenario.   Packages are shipped to your school/site during summer months.  There may be a legitimate business need to obtain invoices and to check for shipment accuracy during a time when employees to whom the items are shipped are not present.  An example presented to me was a shipment of  PE uniforms that arrived over the summer.  A need was felt to open the packages to see if the quantity ordered had indeed been shipped, as well as to check for accuracy of printing, color, sizes etc.  The law quoted above makes no allowance for this, but common sense would say you can’t wait until three days before school starts to check on these items.  So what seems reasonable in these circumstances?

One thought that I have shared with a couple of administrators that would seem to work is that during the signout process that teachers go through at the end of the year, include a permission form or release form of some sort that employees would sign acknowledging that packages received during the months of June and July are subject to being opened for the purpose of (1) obtaining invoices to facilitate payment, (2) checking of accuracy of order.  Or something like that…..   The employee would then have the option to agree to this, or to not agree (remember the law above), but if they do not agree, they become responsible for coming on site to handle these items in a timely manner over the summer.  Something like this would hopefully facilitate efficient conducting of business, while treating our employees professionally and respecting their privacy rights while still following the law.

On July 1, 2009, new laws went into effect to deal with the increasing problem of using cell phone or other electronic devices to send, receive, or forward sexually explicit messages or photographs.   Below is the revised law.

CONCERNING THE USE OF MESSAGING SYSTEMS TO COMMIT UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.  Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. 13-21-1002 (1) (a), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-21-1002. Computer dissemination of indecent material to a child – prohibition. (1) A person commits computer dissemination of indecent material to a child when:

(a) Knowing the character and content of the communication which, in whole or in part, depicts actual or simulated nudity, or sexual conduct, as defined in section 19-1-103 (97), C.R.S., the person willfully uses a

computer, computer network, TELEPHONE NETWORK, DATA NETWORK, or computer system allowing the input, output, examination, or transfer of computer data or computer programs from one computer to another OR

A TEXT-MESSAGING OR INSTANT-MESSAGING SYSTEM to initiate or engage in such communication with a person he or she believes to be a child; and

SECTION 2. 18-3-306 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

18-3-306. Internet luring of a child. (1) An actor commits internet luring of a child if the actor knowingly communicates a statement over a computer or computer network, TELEPHONE NETWORK, OR DATA

NETWORK OR BY A TEXT MESSAGE OR INSTANT MESSAGE to a person who the actor knows or believes is TO BE under fifteen years of age describing AND, IN THAT COMMUNICATION OR IN ANY SUBSEQUENT 

COMMUNICATION BY COMPUTER, COMPUTER NETWORK, TELEPHONE NETWORK, DATA NETWORK, TEXT MESSAGE, OR INSTANT MESSAGE, DESCRIBES explicit sexual conduct as defined in section 18-6-403 (2) (e), and,

in connection with the communication THAT DESCRIPTION, makes a statement persuading or inviting the person to meet the actor for any purpose, and the actor is more than four years older than the person or than the

age the actor believes the person to be. 

SECTION 3. 18-3-405.4 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

18-3-405.4. Internet sexual exploitation of a child. (1) A person AN ACTOR commits internet sexual exploitation of a child if a person, who is at least four years older than a child who is under fifteen years of age,

THE ACTOR knowingly importunes, invites, or entices the child through communication via a computer network or system, TELEPHONE NETWORK, OR DATA NETWORK OR BY A TEXT MESSAGE OR INSTANT MESSAGE, A

PERSON WHOM THE ACTOR KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE AND AT LEAST FOUR YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE ACTOR, to:

(a) Expose or touch the child’s PERSON’S own or another person’s intimate parts while communicating with the person ACTOR via a computer network or system, TELEPHONE NETWORK, OR DATA NETWORK OR BY A TEXT

MESSAGE OR INSTANT MESSAGE; or (b) Observe the person’s ACTOR’S intimate parts while communicating with the person via a computer network or system, TELEPHONE NETWORK, OR DATA NETWORK OR BY A TEXT

MESSAGE OR INSTANT MESSAGE.

SECTION 4. 18-9-111 (1) (e), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

18-9-111. Harassment – stalking. (1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, TELEPHONE NETWORK, DATA NETWORK, TEXT MESSAGE, INSTANT MESSAGE, computer, computer network, or computer

system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is

obscene; or

Effective date – applicability. This act shall take effect July 1, 2009, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after said date.

 Additional information  states that Sexting can result in possible charges of sexual exploitation of a minor.  CO currently is dealing with sexting on a case-by-case basis.  Much of how the law enforcement officers will deal with sexting will depend on the age of the students.  For example, an 18-year-old senior who asks his 15-year-old girlfriend to send him a naked picture can be charged as an adult, possibly with a felony.  However, a 15-year-old boy who asks his 15-year-old girlfriend to send a naked picture obviously wouldn’t be charged as an adult, and most likely not with a felony.

A recent case, out of Colorado Springs, involved a 17-year-old male and 15-year-old female.  Initially both were charged with sexual exploitation of a minor and pornography possession.  As the case developed, it was decided that, due to their ages, not to proceed with those charges.  Instead, the charges were dropped and counseling for both students was required instead.

It is my opinion that, as these cases continue to increase both in volume and severity, that the case-by-case approach may not remain an option.  Throughout the country states that are dealing with this issue have a variety of approaches.  For example, in Indiana a teenage boy was indicted on felony obscenity charges for sending a photo of his genitals to several female classmates.  Another boy in that state was charged with child pornography in a similar case.  Two southwest Ohio teenagers were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a first-degree misdemeanor, for sending or possessing nude photos on their cell phones of two 15-year-old classmates.

However, other states seem to be realizing that prosecuting these students at the highest level has life-long consequences such as having to register as a sex offender.  Some states are then reviewing their laws to assign more age-appropriate consequences.  For example, Vermont lawmakers introduced a bill in April 2009 to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime. 

In Ohio, a county prosecutor and two lawmakers proposed a law that would reduce sexting from a felony to a first degree misdemeanor, and eliminate the possibility of a teenage offender being labeled a sex offender for years. The proposal was supported by the parents of Jessie Logan, a Cincinnati 18-year-old who committed suicide after the naked picture of herself which she sexted was forwarded to people in her high school.  Finally, Utah lawmakers lessened the penalty for sexting for someone younger than 18 to a misdemeanor from a felony.

And while it may be a good thing that states are looking at the age differences between the initial parties, what happens as that message or photo is forwarded?  Many of our seniors are 18 years old early on in their senior year, and need to be made aware of the possible significant and life-long consequences.

And here’s a scary example for us administrators:  In 2008, a Virginia assistant-principal was charged with possession of child pornography and related crimes after he had been asked to investigate a rumored sexting incident at the high school where he worked. Upon finding a student in possession of a photo on his phone that depicted the torso of a girl wearing only underpants, her arms mostly covering her breasts, the assistant principal showed the image to the principal who instructed him to preserve the photo on his computer as evidence, which he did. The court later ruled that the photo did not constitute child pornography because under Virginia law, nudity alone is not enough to qualify an image as child pornography.  Loudoun County prosecutor James Plowman stands by his initial assessment of the photo and says he would not have pursued the case if the assistant principal would have agreed to resign. The assistant principal had to get a second mortgage on his house and spend $150,000 in attorneys’ fees to clear his name.

So, my advice to you would be that when you are investigating these types of cases, immediately involve your SRO, if only to seek advice.  DO NOT download and store these images on anything…not your computer, your phone, a jump drive etc.  If you need to preserve evidence, write a description of what you saw, have a witness available as you’re investigating, and then remove the item from your possession by turning it over to the police.

SD27J Superintendent Policies, JBB and JBB-R, deal with sexual harassment.  JBB-R was amended in May 2009 to specifically include sexting, email, electronic devices and My Space as ways to convey the harassment.   Any instances of this type of behavior, ie sending the text message or photo, then falls under the discipline matrix for sexual harassment and/or sexual harassment behavior.  At the high school level, of which I’m most familiar, those consequences are as follows:   1st offense, counseling, 1-3 days detention or 1-3 days suspension and police contact if appropriate; 2nd offense is 3-5 day suspension and police contact if appropriate; 3rd offense is a 5 day suspension and police contact if appropriate.  Under sexual harassment behavior, the first offense is 3-5 days suspension and police contact if appropriate; and subsequent offenses are 5 days with police contact if appropriate.

I would counsel you, when dealing with sexting issues to ALWAYS contact the police department or school resource officer.   I say this because of the rapidity in which these messages can spread.  Getting to the initial participants and finding out where those messages have been sent in order to stop them is vital to the safety of the students involved.

Finally, I would encourage you to get the message out to your students informing them of the new law and revised harassment policy, and letting them know that you will be dealing with these situations very seriously and that law enforcement will be involved.

Thank you for reading this post, I know it’s rather lengthy.  Please let me know if you have further questions.  Have a great weekend.

I’m not feeling especially pithy today, so I’ll just get to the point…… the following case is from the 10th Circuit which governs CO, KS, NM, OK, UT and WY.

The US Court of Appeals ruled over the summer that a CO school district didn’t violate a student’s free speech rights by requiring her to submit her valedictory speech for prior review or by withholding her diploma until she apologized for disregarding the policy.    One of 15 valedictorians at Lewis Palmer School District submitted, according to district policy, her graduation speech to the principal for review.  The speech as presented to the principal was given approval to be presented at the graduation ceremony.  However, the speech that was actually presented differed in content than what had been presented.  The speech presented urged the audience “to find out more about the sacrifice Jesus made for them etc.”  The student was not given her diploma during the ceremony, and later was made to publicly apologize for her remarks.  She did so and received her diploma.  She then sued LPSD raising 6 claims:  (1) violation of freedom of speech under the 1st amendment, (2) compelled speech in violation of the 1st amendment, (3) violation of equal protection under the 14th amendment, (4) violation of freedom of religion under the 1st amendment, (5) violation of the CO statute on student publications; and (6) violation of the establishment clause under the 1st amendment.  The US District Court entered summary judgment on behalf of LPSD.  The student then appealed the judgment on all claims except the Establishment Clause claim.

The 10th Circuit Court affirmed using Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 484 US 260 (1988).  Hazelwood allows school officials to control school-sponsored speech, provided any restriction is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.  Here, because the school exercised control over who was chosen valedictorian and therefore who could give speeches, the school could then control the content of that speech.  The court further went on to recognize that ultimately the issue was that the student gave a speech other than the one presented for approval. 

If you have any questions regarding this case or its ruling, please feel free to let me know.  Have a great weekend!

I was a bully in junior high.  More accurately, I was part of a small group of girls that were bullies.  I don’t remember anyone ever saying to us that we were bullies, or ever really getting into trouble for our behavior.  In our little minds, we just didn’t like this particular classmate of ours for a whole bunch of really stupid reasons, but which were of paramount importance to us at that time and so we teased her and we thought it was OK.  We said mean and nasty things about her.  We pushed her into lockers and threw basketballs at her in PE class.  We bullied Amanda because she came from the poor side of a town that didn’t even have a wealthy side, because her mother had been married a couple of times, because she was short, because her clothes weren’t new, etc. etc., but mainly we picked on her because of her last name….. It happened to rhyme with a four-letter word that begins with the letter F.    When I think about this, I’m glad that I don’t go home very often, once or twice a year maybe, because every time I’m there I hope that I don’t run into her, because 30 years later I know  we were bullies, whether anyone ever called us that or not, and I am ashamed.  So today’s blog is for Amanda.

In 2006 NSBA surveyed 32,000 students and over 50% reported seeing someone bullied every day, and the same 50% expressed doubt that teachers could stop the behavior.  But we have an affirmative duty to stop this type of behavior every time we see it or hear it.  The law, and Superintendent Policy JICDE, is clear about a school district’s obligation to prevent harassment and take action when it occurs.   As we talked about in District Leadership, cyberbullying is on the rise and the type of bullying that can occur in that medium is often worse than the bullying that takes place in person. (I don’t even want to think about how we would have treated Amanda if we had had cell phones) 

At the elementary level, and sometimes at the lower middle school level, the type of behavior that occurs mainly falls under the term of bullying.  By the time our students are at the upper level of middle school and in high school, more often than not this behavior falls into the category of harassment or sexual harassment.

What is harassment?  Harassment based on a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic background, religion, national origin, age or disability is a form of discrimination prohibited by state and federal laws.  Discrimination against these “protected classes” is prohibited in places of employment and public accommodations, such as public schools.  Title IX goes another step further to protect students from sexual harassment and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

When is a district liable?  A district will be held liable when an appropriate school official has actual knowledge of discrimination, including harassment; that official has authority to take corrective action to address the discrimination; the school official fails to respond adequately; the inadequate response amounts to deliberate indifference; and the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectionably offensive that it deprived the victim of educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school system.  (”kids will be kids” is an example of inadequate response, and, depending on the circumstances, may lead to a claim of deliberate indifference)

What do we do?  (1)  Make sure students, staff, parents and community members understand our policies.  (2)  Strictly enforce the policy in every building.  (3)  Hold everyone accountable for creating and maintaining safe learning and work environments. 

Secondly, just a reminder to discuss with your staff the  Alcohol and Drug policies that were distributed on Wednesday.   I hope each of you has a wonderful long weekend, and as always, if I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

The Hotel Sacher, in Vienna, Austria is world-famous for its dessert, the Sacher Torte.  For more than a hundred and fifty years it has been considered by many as the world’s most sophisticated chocolate pastry.  I was fortunate enough to visit this hotel and experience this culinary marvel in the summer of 1993 while travelling through Europe with 17 teenagers who had recently graduated high school.  Every now and then when I have that chocolate craving, if I concentrate really hard, I can smell and taste and remember that dessert, and I am scared to death!!!   Knowing what I know now, after going to law school and with a few more years in education under my belt, I don’t know if I would ever travel through Europe with 17 teenagers again.   Fortunately, nothing happened, and the three weeks we spent together are some of my fondest memories of teaching that I have. 

BUT, tort law (there’s the connection finally) of which I was blissfully unaware then, imposes such a duty of careupon educators that I really would be hesitant to take such a trip again.  This is one area of law that seems to be confusing for a lot of educators, and/or creates a certain amount of anxiety about potential lawsuits.  Hopefully, I can clear up a bit of that confusion, and maybe even put our fears to rest…..because on second thought, the Sacher Torte experience may well be worth the risk .

Tort law imposes a duty of care on educators.  This means that we must use reasonable care not to injure our students, and to protect them from foreseeable dangers.  If we fail to use reasonable care, we are considered negligent, and if our negligence is the cause of a student’s injury, we or our school may be held liable in money damages to compensate the student for his or her injuries.  To figure out if we have been negligent, the court will ask if we acted as a reasonably prudent educator should have acted under the circumstances.  If the answer is YES, we are not negligent.  If the answer is NO, we are negligent.    Depending upon the particulars of the activity or event, the age of the students involved, other supervisory personnel, etc., this standard is raised or lowered.  In addition, if the student was also negligent, most courts will apply the standard of comparative negligence.  They compare our negligence against the student’s negligence and may award damages proportionately.  The younger the student, the less likely the courts will be to apply this standard.

Some common examples that MAY give rise to a claim of negligence:  (1) Ms. Busy leaves her class for 10 minutes to make copies of a handout.  While out of the room, students begin throwing paper wads, airplanes, and eventually a pencil.  This pencil lands in the eye of a student, permanently blinding her.  Ms. Busy had a duty to protect her students from injuries caused by other students if those injuries could be reasonably foreseen.  Most courts would find that a reasonably prudent educator would (a) know better than to leave their room unsupervised, and (b) would have been in a position to stop the misconduct before a student was injured.

(2) Instead of observing the students when she was on playground duty, Ms. Lesscare was gossiping with another teacher.  During this time, a student ran into the street for a loose ball, was hit by a car, broke both legs, and received 46 stitches. The court COULD assume that if Ms. Lesscare was doing her duty as assigned, and actively watching the children play, that there would probably have been time for the teacher to stop the student from running all the way into the street, depending upon where the student was when the student began chasing the ball.  (one of those where it depends on all the particulars)

Ultimately, it’s all about reasonableness, common sense, and follow through with expectations….from all parties involved. 

Have a great weekend, as always let me know if I can be of assistance.  And, if you’re not headed to Vienna anytime soon, you can order a Sacher Torte online.  Technology is truly a wonderful thing!

Today is the 27th birthday of my beautiful and amazing oldest niece Alaina.  I say that she’s beautiful, because she is…now.   I first saw her when she was about four days old.  I was away at college when she was born and when I came home that weekend, my brother and adoring father was pushing down the top of her head because it was pretty pointed, we called her a cone-head for a few weeks.  Thankfully she doesn’t remember that time.  Did all of his pushing make a difference?  Who knows, I just know her head isn’t pointed now and she is amazing.  She’s currently an operating room nurse at the University of Missouri-Columbia Hospital.  She was hired on in that position before she finished her RN program because of her outstanding performance during her internship.  Alaina will finish this position in 10 days, and, because of outstanding work these past three years will receive a promotion to Clinician Nursing Specialist (something like that anyway) on September 1st.  She will first meet her patient in a clinic, assist the physician/surgeon in his diagnosis, further assist the surgeon in the operating room, make rounds on the patient while they are in the hospital, and finally, be their nurse as they receive follow-up care.  When she was telling me about this promotion and raise, I of course was immediately proud of her, but then said, “Sounds like more work than just being in the OR”.  Her reply, ”Yes, but I can make more of a difference in their lives, they never even know I’m there in the OR.” 

Why do I share this story?  Partly because my niece is an amazing young woman of whom I am extremely proud. Not to be slighted, my younger niece Alicyn, who turns 21 in a couple of months, is double-majoring in secondary math and science education at Truman State University.  In two years, she will need a job……I can provide excellent references!  And partly I share Alaina’s story because she, like so many of you, WANTS to make a difference, and DOES make a difference, even if she doesn’t know it. 

But here’s the real reason for my story.  Cyndra Foster, who does great things at Brighton Heritage Academy, has three individuals who have previously earned their GED, wanting to come back to school and get their high school diploma.  When she first called to ask me how that would work, my first response was, “No, they already have a diploma, they can’t have two.”  She pushed back at me a little bit, which I appreciated, and I said I would look into it.  I then talked to Isobel who said “Why not?”  I again said, because you can’t have two diplomas.  “Why not?  You can have two master’s degrees or PhDs”.   So, I gave in and called CDE…..

It seems that if a person wants the high school diploma, there is a HUGE risk that must be taken.  The GED must be rescinded completely.  The individual must return all diplomas, transcripts etc to CDE along with a letter stating, “I hereby rescind my GED in order to return to high school for the purpose of obtaining my high school diploma.”  The risk is once that GED is returned, they can’t get it back, even if circumstances require them to leave high school again.  It’s all or nothing.  And in the meantime, when applying for jobs they cannot claim that they have a GED, so they are at risk of not getting the job, and of getting paid less for the jobs they do get. 

So why would someone who has taken this difficult test and passed it, take that chance?   There are probably many reasons, but I firmly believe that somewhere along the way SOMEONE, YOU perhaps made a difference and they remember that.  They may have been in a crappy place in their lives for whatever reason, and yet, something positive that YOU did stuck with them.  So, on those days when nothing is going right, and you are watching the clock and counting the minutes until that day is over, and you can’t think of anything that you accomplished, take heart in knowing that somewhere out there is someone whose life may be changed by you, even on a crappy day. The steps for those students wanting to rescind their GED are listed below.  Have a restful weekend, and, as always, let me know how I can be of assistance.

I strongly suggest that before the individual takes these steps that they are counseled as to the risk they are incurring by giving up their GED.  For example, once the GED is rescinded and prior to the earning of the diploma, they would need to answer NO on any job application etc. when asked if they have a GED or HS diploma.  This could affect their earning potential for this time period.

 In addition, prior transcripts would need to be obtained for proper academic placement.  Credit for the GED cannot be counted towards graduation requirements.  Depending on when they dropped out, there could be a significant amount of time before earning the new diploma. 

 However, after counseling, if the individual is determined to return to high school, here are the steps they must take:

 A letter must be submitted to:    GED Testing, 201 East Colfax, Rm 100, Denver, CO 80203

1. The letter must state that they are requesting rescission of their GED in order to pursue a high school diploma.
2. The letter must contain name, address, social security number, all documents received from GED (transcript, diploma, etc) must be returned.
3. AFTER this process is completed, they can enroll in a high school, and must mark on any enrollment forms that they DO NOT have a GED or HS diploma.

One of the best things about working in academia is that “first day feeling”.  There’s nothing quite like the energy that is created, seemingly exponentially, when we get together and plan for another school year.  And when all of those plans come together on opening day, it is like no other work experience I’ve felt before.  Like most of you, since starting kindergarten I have remained on an academic calendar, other than a brief lapse when I worked in the real world for about two years.  While the salary was great, and my boss was okay, and the work was challenging, something was always missing…..students, teachers, freshly-sharpened pencils, the smell of new books, the box of 64 crayons, a fully-charged IPod (keeping up with the times), a new cell phone that texts even faster, but most of all is that energy.  And although students rarely walk through the doors here at the ESC, we had a little boost of electricity in our air yesterday too.  So, I hope each of you had time to revel in that “first day feeling” before the “first day exhaustion” hit at the end of the day.

This week’s blog is just a little review of some cases that I think I mentioned during last year that were settled over the summer.  I hope you find them interesting/helpful, and, as always let me know how I can be of service.

In Forest Grove School District v. T.A., the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement for private school placement of a special education student when a public school fails to provide that student with a free appropriate education (FAPE), even if the student has not previously received special-education services from the public school.   This seems to contradict the ruling issued earlier last year in the Thompson v. St. Vrain case where the court indicated that the reimbursement was only possible if the public school was unable to provide FAPE after being given the opportunity to do so.

In Safford Unified Sch. Dist. #1 v. Redding, the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a strip search of an Arizona student violated her 4th Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, but further concluded that school officials were entitled to qualified immunity from her lawsuit because her rights were not clearly established at that time.   School officials had been told the student was handing out pills to other students, and one student turned over a pill said to have been obtained in this way.  A search ensued, but no pills were found.  The student was then asked to disrobe and adjust her underwear to that any hidden pills could fall out.  None did.  Ultimately, no pills were found and, as the Supremes said, this was an unreasonable search.

This last case would be non-binding on us since it is only a District Court level resolution.  I’ve included it for three reasons (1) It’s from Missouri, my home state (2) it’s from Hannibal, home of Mark Twain, Tom Sawyer, Becky Thatcher, and Huck Finn (that’s the old English teacher in me coming out), and, most importantly it’s something we directly discussed in our Leadership Training.

In Mardis v. Hannibal Public School Dist. #60, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri recently denied a school district’s request to dismiss a student’s First Amendment claim in a case in which the district suspended the student after it learned about emails he sent a friend from off-campus that allegedly included threats against other students.  The court concluded that the district had failed to support its argument that the student’s statement were “true threats” that were not protected by the First Amendment or that the email had created a “substantial disruption” in the school.  The reason the court ruled against the school district, at least in part, was a lack of documentation regarding the substantial disruption argument.  The school claimed that when these threats became known they received numerous calls from parents, community members, and the media, but in court could show no proof of these calls.  Secondly, the district stated that, as a result of these threats, they implemented several safety precautions that further disrupted school, but again could provide no proof of this implementation.  On the district’s argument that the email statements were true threats, the court dismissed that argument as well because the school was unable to provide a copy of the email during the court hearing.  SO>>>>the point of the story……….DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT!   The case is ongoing due to other issues raised.  The student has since graduated, but becuase this suspension is on his school records, the case has not become moot.  Should the court continue to rule in favor of the student, the school will be required to erase the suspension and all other references to this incident from his record.  Tom, Huck, and I will keep you posted!

I hope each of you had an amazing first day of school yesterday

I hope this Friday afternoon finds all of you well and anxiously looking forward to having your staff in the building on Monday.   Over the summer, I was fortunate to work with Andrew Wright to create a district archiving policy attached below.   Portions of this policy are only applicable at the district level, but many portions will apply to your building.  Please review and share with the appropriate staff member(s).  And, as always, let me know if I can be of any help.

So I have these great plans to start the year completely on top of things, you know, rejuvenated, organized, prepared, …..sound familiar?  I intended to have my blog updated last Friday as promised, had blocked time out on my calendar Friday morning to write, had my materials ready to go……and then a summer cold hit me mid-morning on Thursday, and by the end of the day sleeping was the only thing on my mind.  Which I did all day on Friday, Saturday, and most of Sunday.  To all of you who came looking at my site (I know there had to be at least one of you….) I’m sorry.  Here’s some information that I hope you will find useful.  Achoo!

Q:   Can we search a student’s cell phone?       A:    YES, if you have reasonable suspicion that the student was using the phone during, or as part of, the commission of some type of inappropriate behavior.  Example:  Student skips class and goes to Taco Bell.  Can you search phone during the imposition of consequences for skipping class?   NO, it’s not related.    However, same student skips class, and while at Taco Bell decides to make arrangements via text message to buy an illegal substance.  Can you search the phone?    YES, phone was used as part of the inappropriate behavior.

Q:   What do we do when staff members come to school hungover?   A:   We (some members of executive leadership) are meeting next week to review current policy and to discuss what the appropriate steps would be for you to take.  If you have thoughts or ideas, please either respond to this posting, or send me an email.

Q:   Are all people who live in a trailer park considered homeless?   A:   NO.   The law is referring to trailer parks that house impermanent structures ie, a campground or RV park that has trailer sites.  Persons living in a  permanent site, such as Eastgate near Pennock Elementary, would not be considered homeless under this section of the law simply because they live in a mobile home.

Additional Info:

Please remember to include the District’s Non-Discrimination clause on all public documents.

Please remember that if you, or any staff member, have a web-page where student photos are posted to obtain permission from the student/parent/guardian prior to posting the photo.

Wow!  Negotiations are completed, contracts are in the mail (most of them anyway), and on Monday and Tuesday, we have our District Leadership training. Students are back in only two and a half weeks, teachers in two weeks, new teachers in one week.  Where did the summer go?  Not to sound like my mother, although I hear it is inevitable, but time really moves quicker as we age!  Speaking of moving quickly, I wanted to provide some resources that will be shared on Monday that I hope you will find useful as you prepare to welcome back your staff.  And, keeping with the theme of moving quickly, only 4 1/2 months until Christmas Break!

Reporting Child Abuse         Supt. Policy     JLF, JLF-R, CRS 19-3-304

Sexual Harassment              Supt. Policy     GBAA, GBAA-R, JBB, JBB-R, JBB-E

FERPA                                   20 USC 1232g

Homeless Student                McKinney-Vento Act, CRS 22-1-102.5

504 Plans                              Section 504 at 34 CFR 104.35, Americans w/ Disabilities Act Amendments Act

Dropout Policy                     Supt. Policy JFC, JFC-R

Communicable Diseases     Supt. Policy EBAA, EBAA-R, GBGA, JLCC, JLCC-R