by Ryan LaFlamme | May 1, 2019 | General, Student Education and Discipline
A Federal District Judge recently ruled that a charter school dress code policy which required girls to wear skirts and prohibited girls from wearing pants or shorts, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Many challenges in the past have rested on First Amendment grounds regarding freedom of expression. However, this case was brought on a theory of gender discrimination.
The Plaintiffs argued that the girls suffered tangible disadvantages due to the policy. The court found that the Plaintiffs established that “the girls are subject to a specific clothing requirement that renders them unable to play as freely during recess, requires them to sit in an uncomfortable manner in the classroom, causes them to be overly focused on how they are sitting, distracts them from learning, and subjects them to cold temperatures on their legs.”
The Defendant, the Charter Day School, argued the dress code was designed to garner mutual respect between the boys and the girls, particularly in that the skirts represented visual cues to promote respect between the two sexes. Striking down the policy, the school argued, would remove those visual cues and hinder a sense of respect for the opposite sex. The Court noted that even if these were legitimate interests of the state, the school failed to show how the policy advanced such interests.
The Court further noted that school dress code policies have been upheld by numerous courts and that the state does have legitimate interests in the grooming and dress of students attending schools supported by the state. However, these interests must be addressed in a uniform, gender-neutral way that does not penalize a student simply for being one sex or the other.
by Giselle Spencer | Mar 13, 2018 | Student Education and Discipline
In 1965, a group of siblings and a family friend in Des Moines, Iowa, decided to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. When the principals of their schools became aware of the plan, they developed a policy prohibiting such protests – a policy that the students chose to ignore. As a result, Mary Beth Tinker, her brother, and a high school friend were suspended from school. This is the backdrop of one of the most famous student free-speech cases in American history: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 509 (1969). Indeed, most school administrators can quote a prominent observation of the Supreme Court as it relates to speech: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
In light of the current national movement of planned student protests around the country, this case provides important considerations on the authority of school officials to censor student expression. While the High Court held that expression in certain cases may be suppressed, it cautioned school officials that they must be able to show that their action “was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular viewpoint.”
As student protests on a national level gain steam and momentum, school officials must plan a response that is viewpoint neutral and measured in light of potential school rule infractions. Even when a student’s viewpoint is not unpopular, districts should consider imposing appropriate discipline if only to neutralize future viewpoint discrimination claims from students who wish to engage in speech or leave campus for a less popular reason. When student speech is coupled with other student expression such as walking out of class in protest of gun violence in schools, school officials maintain their obligation to adhere to student attendance laws, as any time away from school is time away from instruction and may result in truancy or disciplinary consequences. However, districts must remain aware that they can no longer suspend students for attendance violations. Disciplinary consequences are best reserved for the act of cutting class or causing substantial disruption to the educational environment.
by Gary Stedronsky | Sep 28, 2017 | Student Education and Discipline
During a speech in Alabama on September 22, President Trump made some comments that provoked a number of professional athletes to kneel or sit – or even stay in the locker room – during the national anthem on Sunday’s NFL games. In a nutshell, Trump said that NFL owners should fire their players who disrespect the U.S. flag. This statement generated repercussions among professional athletes, who enjoy the same constitutional rights to freedom of speech that others in the country enjoy. Kneeling during the national anthem (which gained the hashtag #TakeTheKnee on Twitter), although not verbal speech, is a form of nonverbal speech or expression that is protected under the First Amendment.
Whereas the U.S. Constitution provides the U.S. government with certain powers, the Bill of Rights restricts those governmental powers by providing people within the United States with the named rights, such as freedom of speech. Therefore, constitutional rights must be honored by governmental actors, including public school districts. Because the NFL is not a public employer, it does not have a constitutional obligation to allow these freedoms.
Public school districts, however, are governmental actors. Because the government must allow constitutional rights, our question then becomes, do student athletes have the same constitutional rights to freedom of speech? Or more simply, can student athletes #TakeTheKnee?
Participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege and not a right protected by law. Under Ohio law, boards of education are permitted to adopt a policy authorizing district employees who coach a pupil activity program to prohibit a student from participating in the program under conditions of the policy. Such conditions may include requirements such as maintaining a certain minimum grade point average or acting in a manner that does not bring discredit or dishonor upon the school. If a student violates the policy, he or she may be removed from the activity program without due process requirements.
A school may not impose a condition that violates a student’s constitutional rights. Although students do not necessarily have the same constitutional rights in the school as they do in public, they do not lose their constitutional rights when they enter the school building.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals once heard two separate court cases centered on free speech rights of the First Amendment. In both cases, students were disciplined for off-campus social media posts. The court issued two opposing opinions on the same day in these two similar cases. This led to the full court panel rehearing the two cases. The full panel held that the speech was protected by the First Amendment in both cases. The takeaway from these cases is that courts are often willing to protect a student’s free speech rights – even if the speech is offensive and hurtful – if a school cannot prove that the speech sufficiently disrupted the educational process.
In the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case regarding whether students’ political actions would be protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Several students wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, despite the school’s policy prohibiting students from wearing these armbands. The Court held that the students’ wearing these armbands was considered protected speech under the First Amendment and declared the school’s policy unconstitutional. The Court noted that this action led to no disruption of or interference with the educational environment.
Going back even further, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on Flag Day (June 14) in 1943 that a state may not compel unwilling school children to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States. Furthermore, any discipline brought on by “an act of disrespect, either by word or action” was also prohibited. Ohio even has a statute (R.C. 3313.602) that states that no student shall be required to participate in the pledge of allegiance. The bottom line is that schools may not require students to participate in acts of patriotism, such as recitation of the pledge of allegiance or participation in a certain manner during the national anthem.
by Bill Deters | Aug 31, 2017 | Legislation, Student Education and Discipline
House Bill 49, the budget bill, provides two additional pathways for graduation for the class of 2018. In short, the first option is an academic pathway, and the second is a career-tech pathway. (See also the Ennis Britton blog post on the new graduation requirements.)
Note: This applies only to the class of 2018, or as the bill states, to students who entered ninth grade for the first time on or after July 1, 2014, but prior to July 1, 2015.
Academic Pathway
In addition to meeting other graduation requirements as follows:
- Take all end-of-course exams (or the private charter school assessment)
- Retake at least once any end-of-course exam in English language arts or math on which the student scored lower than 3
- Complete the required units of instruction
a student must meet two of the following requirements:
- Have an attendance rate of at least 93 percent during 12th grade
- Take at least four full-year or equivalent courses during 12th grade and has at least a 2.5 GPA (on a 4.0 scale) for the 12th-grade courses
- Complete a capstone project during 12th grade
- Complete 120 hours of work in a community service role or in a position of employment, including internships, work study, co-ops, and apprenticeships
- Earn 3 or more transcripted credit hours under College Credit Plus at any time during high school
- Pass an AP or IB course and receive a score of 3 or higher on the corresponding AP exam or 4 or higher on the corresponding IB exam at any time during high school
- Earn at least a Level 3 score in each of the Reading for Information, Applied Mathematics, and Locating Information components of the job skills assessment, or a comparable score on similar components of a succeeding version of that assessment
- Obtain an industry-recognized credential or a group of credentials equal to at least 3 points total
- Satisfy the conditions required to receive the OhioMeansJobs-readiness seal
Career-Tech Pathway
In addition to meeting other requirements as follows:
- Take all end-of-course exams (or the private charter school assessment)
- Complete the required units of instruction
- Complete an ODE-approved career-tech training program that includes at least four career-tech courses
a student must meet one of the following requirements:
- Attain a cumulative score of at least proficient on required career-tech assessments or test modules
- Obtain an industry-recognized credential or group of credentials worth 12 points
- Demonstrate successful workplace participation, based on a written agreement signed by the student, a district representative, and an employer or supervisor, by completing 250 hours of workplace experience and receiving regular, written, positive evaluations from the employer or supervisor and a district representative
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | May 23, 2017 | General, Student Education and Discipline
In a unanimous opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a school’s search of an unattended bag, and the two subsequent searches that initiated from the initial search, were constitutional. The court held that the searches served a compelling governmental interest in protecting the safety of the students. Two lower courts had ruled that the subsequent searches were unconstitutional and thus suppressed the evidence found in those searches – including ammunition and a gun.
Whetstone High School student James Polk left a book bag on his school bus. The bus driver found the book bag and gave it to the safety and security resource coordinator, Robert Lindsey, who checks the buses to ensure that no students are remaining on board. Lindsey was not a police officer. Based on the high school’s practice of searching unattended book bags to identify the owner and to ensure the contents are not dangerous, Lindsey opened the bag and saw some papers and notebooks, along with Polk’s name written on one of the papers (search 1). He had heard that Polk was possibly in a gang, so he took the bag immediately to the principal’s office, where together they conducted a complete search of the book bag (search 2).
In conducting search 2, the principal and Lindsey found bullets in the book bag and then contacted a police officer. When the police officer arrived, they found Polk and searched him and the book bag he was carrying (search 3). They found a handgun in the book bag during search 3.
On trial for conveyance or possession of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school-safety zone, Polk asked the court to suppress the evidence – both the bullets and the handgun – arguing that the searches were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which protects from unreasonable searches and seizures. Both the trial court and the court of appeals granted his motion to suppress the evidence, holding that search 1 – Lindsey’s initial opening of the bag enough to see Polk’s name on a document – was the only legitimate search. The other two searches, the courts held, were unconstitutional.
In general, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer must have probable cause and a search warrant to conduct a search. However, courts have held that school searches may be conducted under a lesser standard of reasonable suspicion: justified at inception and reasonable in scope. In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the search protocol used was reasonable through balancing the government’s interest in safety and security against the student’s privacy interests.
The court centered on the constitutionality of search 2: whether it was permissible for the principal and Lindsey to conduct a full search of the student’s bag, when search 1 provided them with the identity of the owner of the unattended book bag.
In its finding, the court determined that it was appropriate for Whetstone High School to conduct complete searches of unattended book bags to ensure that they do not contain dangerous contents. Anything less than a complete search would not be enough to ensure safety and security for students. Key to this determination was that Whetstone High School required searches of unattended book bags to not only identify the owners but also to verify that the contents of the book bag are not dangerous. This was their protocol, albeit unwritten. Further, the search protocol was appropriate, reasonable, and reflective of the school’s obligation to keep students safe in a time when schools face a myriad of security concerns (e.g., school shootings, bomb threats, terrorist attacks). As a result, search 1 was inadequate in the court’s mind as it did not advance the school’s interest in ensuring safety and security of its students. Search 2 was required to fulfill this interest.
Additionally, the court found that the student’s expectation of privacy in his unattended book bag was “greatly diminished.” A person’s reasonable expectation of privacy diminishes when an item is lost or unattended, to the extent that the contents may be examined by the person who has found the item. Furthermore, a lost item in a closed container such as a book bag would carry an even lesser expectation of privacy, especially in a school setting, which must ensure the safety and security of all students.
Therefore, in balancing the school’s strong interest in protecting its students against Polk’s low expectation of privacy in the unattended book bag, the court determined that search 2 was reasonable and appropriate because the school needed to not only identify the owner of the book bag but also ensure the contents of the book bag were not dangerous. The court did not comment on search 3 but instead left the resulting judgment on that search to the lower court to make, consistent with this new decision.
State v. Polk, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-2735.
by Bronston McCord | Nov 1, 2016 | General, Student Education and Discipline
Beginning with the class of 2018, Ohio’s graduation requirements will change. In addition to the state’s academic curriculum requirements, which have not changed, students must fulfill an additional requirement to earn their high school diploma. Students have three options to choose from to fulfill this additional requirement. (Note: The Ohio Graduation Tests are still in use for the class of 2017; however, these students may use the new end-of-course tests to satisfy the testing requirement.)
- Ohio’s State Tests: Meet the minimum number of points on end-of-course tests
Under this option, students must accumulate at least 18 total points on the seven state tests, with a minimum number of points in each of the three subject areas. The points given for each test range from 1 (limited performance level) to 5 (advanced performance level).
|
Subject Area
|
Courses Tested
|
Number of Tests
|
Minimum Points Required
|
Points Possible
|
| English |
English I |
2 |
4 |
10 |
| English II |
| Math |
Algebra I or
Intermediate Math I |
2 |
4 |
10 |
Geometry or
Intermediate Math II |
| Science and Social Studies |
Biology (or Physical Science – 2018 only) |
3 |
6 |
15 |
| American History |
| American Government |
| Additional points required from any of the above tests |
4 |
|
| Total Points |
18 |
35 |
This option gives students flexibility in which subject areas to earn points – as long as the minimum number of points is met in each subject area. Thus, a high score in one subject area can help to offset a lower score in another subject area.
Retakes: Students may retake any test anytime during the student’s academic career within the testing window offered by ODE.
Alternatives for Science and Social Studies tests: Instead of taking the state’s end-of-course tests in Science and Social Studies, the following alternative options are available:
- Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses: The tests offered in these courses will substitute for the end-of-course tests.
- College Credit Plus courses: The grade earned in the college course will determine the number of points credited to the test.
- College Readiness Tests: Meet the minimum scores on the ACT or SAT test
Under this option, students may meet or exceed the minimum score requirements on the ACT or SAT tests. (Note: These minimum scores are known as “remediation-free” scores, which are set by Ohio’s college and university presidents; therefore, they are subject to change.)
|
ACT
|
SAT
|
| Subject Area |
Minimum Score |
Subject Area |
Minimum Score |
| English |
18 |
Writing |
430 |
| Math |
22 |
Math |
520 |
| Reading |
22 |
Reading |
450 |
- Industry Credential and Work Readiness: Earn an industry credential and meet the minimum score on the WorkKeys test
Under the credential option, students graduate high school ready to enter the workforce with a job skill that Ohio employers need right now. Students must earn a minimum of 12 points from an approved, industry-recognized credential or group of credentials in a single career field, and then score 13 or greater on a job-skills test, WorkKeys, which shows their work-readiness in that job.
Students can choose from 13 career fields:
- Agriculture
- Arts and Communications
- Business and Finance
- Construction
- Education and Training
- Engineering
- Health
- Hospitality and Tourism
- Human Services
- Information Technology
- Law and Public Safety
- Manufacturing
- Transportation
|
WorkKeys Test
|
| Subject Area |
Minimum Points Required |
| Reading |
3 |
| Applied Mathematics |
3 |
| Locating Information |
3 |
| Additional points required from any of the above areas |
1 (class of 2018 and 2019) |
| 2 (beginning class of 2020) |
| Total Points |
13 (2018/2019) |
| 14 (2020) |
