Megan J. Forness'
Portfolio
EOL 469, Fall 1999
Dr. Paul Thurston
UIUC
Introduction to the American Legal System
Changes in the policy because of the Monroe v. Davis case
Major themes from "Learning the Law and Loving School Attorneys Less" and "Reflections on the Knowledge Base in Law and Ethics for Educational Leaders"
Power and Authority Topic "A"
Aurora East Public School District v. Cronin Brief
Tyska v. Board of Education Township High School District 214 Brief (written by Donna Lerch)
Statutory Law
Hypothetical Situation Responses
Illinois Residency Policy
Rochester Community Unit School District 3A Residency Policy
Residency Hypothetical written by David Stone
Statutory Law
Brief of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997)
Written analysis of Hypothetical #2
Comments on Hypothetical #1
Written analysis of Hypothetical B
Comments on Hypothetical A, written by Donna Lerch and Hypothetical C written by Peter Schmitt
Rochester Community Unit School District 3A Copyright Policy [comments]
Torts
Brief of Lynch v. Board of Education of Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10, 82 Ill.2d 415, 412 N.E.2d 447 (1980).
(Weeks 5-6 Assignment in syllabus) Before class, identify (one page or less) any fears you have about personal liability for injuries that occur or may occur related to your professional responsibilities. Enter this in your portfolio and provide a link to your response as a web page.
Torts
Because of your reputation as an education law expert, your thoughtfulness and caring attitude, and your experience as a public school teacher, your superintendent called to ask for your advice about a matter that has troubled him and many people in the community. This matter is the increasing incidence of suicide at both the high school and middle school level around the country. Your superintendent is concerned about students in the district being at-risk and wonders about the district's potential liability and the adequacy of the district's policy. Please write a short memorandum (3-5 pages, double-spaced) to your superintendent in which you do the following:
1. Describe the holdings in two relatively recent cases concerned with student suicide: Grant v. Board of Trustees of Valley View School District and Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse. (These cases recently came to the superintendent's attention and provided motivation to contact you about this troubling matter of student suicide.)
2) Analyze the extent to which, and under what circumstances, the district may have a duty of due care to students and their parents for preventing suicides. (See the reproduced sections of Prosser and Keeton, The Law of Torts, 5th edition, and Statsky, Essentials of Torts, in your first packet of photocopied materials, that describe the first two elements of negligence: duty of due care and breach of duty. Draw upon this information, among other things, to make your analysis regarding the existence of a duty of due care and what might amount to a breach of that duty.)
3) How adequate is your district's policy? Is there a policy that speaks to this? (Where appropriate, consult your district's policy manual. If a policy manual is not available assume that no policy currently exists that applies to threatened student suicide.) Should revisions or additions be made? Should a policy be adopted? In this section I want you to briefly describe to the superintendent your analysis of the adequacy of the policy, any suggestions for improving the policy and any concerns you may have about treating this as a policy matter. (If you do not have a district from which you can turn for the existence of a policy assume that no policy exists. Still have a particular district in mind, though, for which you are making this analysis.) For your information I am including a policy from a wealthy north suburban Chicago school district on Adolescent Suicide Awareness and Prevention Programs. It is included as a possible point of comparison with your district policy.
Link to my memorandum to the superintendent.
First Amendment Free Speech, First Amendment Religion, Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, Student Discipline
Paper concerning religious objections to programs and materials and applicability to the Settle case and writing assignments for students (First Amendment Religion)
Policy Topic #1 : Student Dress Code/Hair Length (First Amendment Free Speech)
Policy Topic #2 : Zero Tolerance Policies (Student Discipline)
Addendums
Rochester Community Unit School District's Policy on Student-to-Student Sexual Harassment
ROCHESTER COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 3A
STUDENTS
STUDENT WELFARE - Sexual Harassment
The Rochester School District 3A believes that a school environment where sexual harassment is tolerated fosters disrespect, interferes with a student's opportunity to learn, and creates an intimidating, hostile learning environment. Accordingly, the Rochester School District shall not tolerate sexual harassment of students by other students, by employees of the District or by other adults at the District.
Sexual harassment as defined in the Illinois Human Rights Act means:
"Any unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature when:
1. submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment;
2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's work performances or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.
A student who feels he/she is being sexually harassed is encouraged to bring the complaint to the attention of the Principal. If the Principal is allegedly involved in the harassment, the complaint should be taken to the Superintendent.
Such report shall be made in writing, detailing the specifics of the charge.
The Principal will investigate the report and determine a resolution of the case, including any necessary and/or appropriate disciplinary action.
If the student is dissatisfied with the decision of the Principal, the matter may be appealed in writing to the Superintendent. If the student is dissatisfied with the decision of the Superintendent, the matter may be appealed in writing to the Board.
The sexual harassment of one student by another student shall be considered a violation of the Student Disciplinary Code, Level III "gross disrespect" as approved by the Board and subject to the appropriate disciplinary actions as stated for this offense.
When there is evidence of the violation of this policy or violations of Title VII or Title IX by an employee of Rochester School District 3A as they apply to sex discrimination, the administration and/or Board of Education shall take appropriate action including termination, suspension, warning and/or such other disciplinary actions as may be warranted.
7/31/95
Comments on the Rochester Community Unit School District's policy in light of Monroe v. Davis:
After reading Monroe v. Davis and accompanying editorials by Jeffrey Rosen and James Kilpatrick, I am again reminded of how complex student conduct resolutions can be. I think that the opinion of the court and the dissenting opinion both have the best interest of the students in mind when they considered this complicated issue. The harassment of LaShonda Davis should not have even reached the level of the courts. If the school district had a student-to-student sexual harassment policy and teachers and administrators committed to upholding it, this issue should have been resolved internally. O'Connor implies that she is concerned about real problems of real students, while Kennedy's dissent warns of the potential avalanche of liability schools could face. Because the school did not act, the court had to, and the stage is now set for more governmental involvement into one of the most sensitive of human affairs. Unfortunately, if the court had not acted in this way, the school's inaction to this type of student behavior may be viewed as acceptable and would perhaps continue.
In order to maintain appropriate student-to-student relations in a school environment, schools develop student conduct codes and policies that reflect legal concerns such as, in this case, sexual harassment. It is unreasonable to think that all school age students will abide by the conduct codes set forth in their respective districts. It is in the very nature of adolescents to test rules and display immature and perhaps even offensive behaviors, both while at school and at home. Having conduct codes and policies is only the first step a school district takes in order to create a healthy environment for learning. I believe that schools should have the control to discipline students who violate these codes and policies, yet there must exist an agreed upon policy for reporting such incidents as they arrive. I believe that the Rochester Community Unit School District's policy on student-to-student harassment does a fairly good job addressing this issue.
Rochester's policy does several things. First and foremost, it exists. It includes the philosophy of the district, a clear definition of sexual harassment, as defined in the Illinois Human Rights Act, and specific reporting procedures which must be followed in order to document any such event. There is a process for appealing, both after the initial and second stages of the process. Student-to-student harassment is considered a violation of the Student Disciplinary Code, Level III. All students must sign a form at the beginning of the school year, stating that they are aware of these policies. Included in this policy is a statement referring specifically to Board actions against any employee violating Title VII or Title IX.
In light of the Monroe v. Davis decision, this policy may serve its district better if it were to include what steps would be taken if a student is dissatisfied with the Board's decision after two appeals. Would it then and only then become a matter of the court? Should it include language that requires students to present proof of the harassment (i.e., witnesses, written or physical evidence)? Should it include language that relieves a teacher or other school employees of responsibility if they are unaware of the harassment? Should it include language that punishes a teacher or other school employee for active indifference when they have knowledge of a harassment situation? I am not sure of the answers to any of these questions, yet I can guess that more is better in terms of adding language to policies to protect schools.
Rochester Community Unit School District's Residency Policy
ROCHESTER COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 3A
STUDENTS
ATTENDANCE - Non-Resident Students
Prior to registration, parents must present a letter to the District stating that they have purchased, rented or own property and are in the process of building and will be a resident of the School District within sixty days. Students who fail to become residents within sixty days will be required to withdraw.
The Board may admit into attendance students who are not residents of the District. Such admission shall be upon the petition of the student's parent or guardian and shall be at the sole discretion of the Board. In making its decision, the Board may consider, in addition to other factors, the availability of facilities and programs, the past disciplinary history of the student, the student's educational and social needs, and the needs of the applications will be accepted only in May, June and July for enrollment in the following school year.
All nonresident students shall pay tuition as required by Illinois law, with $1,500 payable prior to the first day of school and the remainder due by December 15 of each school year.
This policy shall be subject to change by action of the Board at any time. All nonresident students shall annually renew their applications for enrollment and all such applications will be reviewed annually by the administration and representatives of the Board. Any tuition student may be required to withdraw at the end of any school year.
Transportation of tuition students will be provided only on the District's regularly established routes within the District. Non-resident student transportation will be considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on seating availability.
7/31/95
Rochester Community Unit School District's Copyright Policy
DOES NOT EXIST
Although RCUSD 3A does not have a policy to specifically address copyright issues, I don't know that creating one would be in their best interest. The Copyright Act of 1978 and the Fair Use doctrine seem to address what is and is not acceptable as far as copyright is concerned. Perhaps a provision could be added to the policy manual that states that all students and staff shall adhere to the Copyright Act of 1978. This may reinforce to students that they are indeed still affected by the laws of this country even when they are within school walls.
Perhaps some posters with bulleted lists containing general copyright guidelines could be posted in school libraries. These may help reinforce the provisions of the Act and help students be more aware that there are certain limits.