Topic: |
First Ammendments, Student's Rights |
Session Overview: |
In this lesson we will review a number of federal and state laws or judicial decisions relating to the very broad space of student’s rights, focusing after an initial or discussion on residency and attendance, on free speech, discipline and religious issues. AN OVERVIEW OF STUDENT DISCIPLINE While class members should have familiarity with each of the areas contained in this lesson, the reading is extensive. As a result, you should review materials in which you have an interest and forward questions, comments, or feedback to the instructor on two of the four topics discussed. |
RIGHT TO ATTEND SCHOOL- RESIDENCY: |
Many districts attempt to enforce policies which condition student attendance in school on residence in a particular community. Recent statutory amendments to M.G.L. c. 76, §§5 & 6, effective in mid September of this year, allow schools to collect tuition from parents who live other than where their children attend school. Please check the link above and note the revisions listed by the legislation in Chapter 352 of the Acts of 200, section 33. Topics for this class do not relate to special education, §504 and discipline of special education students. A summary of recent decisions follows with citations to the seminal case in the area, Teel v. Hamilton-Wenham, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 345 (1982). In Lydia D., et al v. Thomas W. Payzant, Suffolk Superior Court Civil Action No. 035847, 2004 WL 1147450, May 20, 2004 the City of Boston excluded two pupils from Boston Latin School on the grounds that they did not reside in Boston. The students had enrolled as 7th graders in September of that year after taking the entrance examination as nonresident students. Their invitation to enroll was conditioned on the establishment of residency in the City of Boston by the end of July 2003. They satisfied the initial requirements for establishing residency. The students brought an action in Suffolk County Superior Court in December seeking a preliminary injunction barring BPS from excluding the students pending a decision on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered and the matter was scheduled for a final hearing on May 12, 2004. On May 12, 2004, a different judge determined that Boston had relied on substantial evidence in concluding that the students were not residents, but that BPS had not provided sufficient notice to their parents prior to making the exclusion decision. The key issues to examine are:
|
STUDENT DISCIPLINE REGULATIONS: |
These materials discuss student discipline under the provisions of Chapter 71, at The General Laws of Massachusetts website.
These materials also assume a familiarity with basic principles of due process under Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Click the link to that case to review Goss or visit www.home.earthlink.net/~schoollaw/caselaw.html. Statutory Overview - ERA After the ERA, section 37H authorized building principals and superintendents to expel from school a student who is
Prior to taking such action, a student must be notified in writing of his/her right to a hearing at which counsel may be in attendance. The student and his or her counsel may present evidence and witnesses at such hearing. After a hearing the principal may suspend or expel the pupil. The new state law has no effect on discipline of special needs students which will be addressed in a separate part of the course work. |
STUDENT EXCLUDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37H OF CHAPTER 71 : |
After adopting the ERA in 1993, the legislature continued to distill its views on student discipline. A January 1994 law amended the ERA regarding student discipline. Its provisions withstood constitutional challenge in Doe v. Superintendent of Worcester, 421 Mass. 117 (1995). What follows is a brief summary of the amendments and discussion of some relevant issues relating to the Massachusetts law.
|
DISCIPLINE OF PUPILS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL CHARGES: |
The provisions of Chapter 71, §37H˝ expand the options for schools wishing to impose discipline or students who are subject to pending criminal felony charges. Informationally, a felony is defined in Chapter 274, Section 1 of the General Laws as a "crime punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison...". Typically, State prison crimes are crimes for which the maximum punishment may involve incarceration for more than two and one half years. Other provisions of the General Law cloud what seems to be clear. General Laws Chapter 90F, Section 1, a law designed to implement Massachusetts laws parallel to Federal provisions relative to motor vehicle safety, defines a felony as "any offense under State or Federal law that is punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year". For school purposes, the one year rule appears to be defensible and may provide additional flexibility to administrators under unusual or serious circumstances: check with local counsel when in doubt.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 37h1/2
A recent example of the application of sec.37H1/2 is found in the SJC decision involving the School Committee of Stoughton and a minor student charged with a felony. There the court discussed the quality and quantitiy of evidence necesary to sustain a decision to suspend a student pending resolutuon of criminal charges. Judicial Decision: DOE vs Stoughton
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The amendment to Section 37H and the addition of the provisions of section 37H1/2 should assist school districts in their removal of violent and disruptive regular education students whose continued presence affects the general welfare of the schools. It is now clear that no district can be forced to accept a pupil expelled from another district for reasons involving possession of weapons or drugs on school property or based on assaults of school personnel.
The legislature has created a two-tiered system for dealing with pupils who are alleged or have been found to be involved in serious criminal activity. Students subject to criminal complaints alleging commission of a felony may now be suspended and those standing convicted of such charges may now be expelled.
Questions remain about the vitality of c. 76, sections 16 and 17. There may be a third or middle tier of offenses beyond weapons/drugs/assaults covered by section 37H but "less" serious than the felonies subject to section 37H 1/2. The Easthampton decision, discussed above, suggests that Section 16 and 17 are merely procedural and do not, therefore, create any substantive rights. Matters relating to “misconduct” may still be subject to committee hearings, as I believe to be the case.
|
RECENT SUPERIOR COURT and FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS: |
These resent cases have defined administrative and student rights in the topics highlighted. Feel free to explore any or all of the brief (2 page) summaries of these court decisions. First Ammendment Cases: Recent Search and Seizure Cases Effecting Students:
Freedom of Speech Issues: |
Discussions |
|
|
|
|