Law Cases

Front 1

Equality in Education

Back 1

14th Amendment to Constitution
equal protection state and federal law

Front 2

Separate but equal

Back 2

Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)

Front 3

Cited the equal protection clause of 14th amendment
laws were unconstitutional and ruled that separate schools deprive minority children of equal educational opportunities

Back 3

Brown V. Board of Education 1954

Front 4

CHallenge of school suspensions as they wore armbands to school in protest of Vietnam War. 1980s-emphasis of school order
school officials may NOT censure or censor student speech unless it causes a SUBSTANTIAL disruption of school operations

Back 4

TINKER vs. Des Moines Independent community school district (1969)

Front 5

Court case that decided in prinicpal's favor after he deleted two pages from the school paper ... officials may exercise content-based control as long as their actions are related to legitimate education purposes

Back 5

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Front 6

Three step test for applying the First Amendment freedom of expression clause to public employees, including public school teachers.

Back 6

Teachers' Speech Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle (1977)

Front 7

allowed the states a more relaxed standard for justifying their funding policies and held that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause permits any kind of school finance system, as long as it provides a minimum education for every student

Back 7

Per-Pupil expenditure San Antonio Independent School District V. Rodriguez (1973)

Front 8

relied on title VI of civil rights act of 1964 which prohibits federally funded programs from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin. school districts to take affirmative steps to rectify language deficiencies of students with limited ENglish proficiency

Back 8

Lau V. Nichols (1974)

Front 9

Court determined that individuals with disabilities must receive IEPs. Must be reasonably designed to provide educational benefits.

Back 9

Board of Education v. Rowley (1982)

Front 10

Can an employer reasonably accomodate an employee with a disability? -it depends -accomodation is usually reasonable, therefore REQUIRED

Back 10

School Board V. Arline (1987)

Front 11

Public school officials may not force students to salute the flag. The students in this case were Jehovah's witneses

Back 11

WV State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Front 12

School boards may not remove books from the school libraries simply because they dislike the books' ideas; their reasons must reflect rational grounds, such as educational suitability, rather than political orthodoxy

Back 12

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District no. 26 v. Pico

Front 13

Suspension of up to ten school days school officials must provide at LEAST oral notice of the charges and student must be heard --14th amendmentdue process

Back 13

GOss v. Lopez (1975)

Front 14

8th amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment -student can bring civil suit--teacher can be discharged

Back 14

Ingraham v. wright (1977)

Front 15

Searches --students are protected by 4th amendment against unwarranted searches--school authorities only need reasonable SUSPICION

Back 15

New Jersey v. TLO(85)

Front 16

Random drug testing of student athletes is ok--constitutional

Back 16

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)

Front 17

Female student sued the school district, claiming that her teacher had sexually harassed her
Title IX-no discriminating on basis of gender, authorizes a suit by victim for MONEY damages

Back 17

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools(1992)

Front 18

District may be liable for employee-to-student sexual harassment only when an official has the authority to institute corrective measures, has notice of the harassment, and deliberately takes NO action against the employee's misconduct.

Back 18

Gebser v. Lago VIsta INdependent School District (1998)

Front 19

More than 10 consecutive days as a change in student's placement in special ed. IDEA (Individuals with disabilities education act) can be more upon agreement between parents and school and likely to injure self or others

Back 19

Honig v Doe (1988)

Front 20

supplements for secular subjects in parochial schools violate 1st amendment's establishment clause. Three steps: 1. purpose must be secular, its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, its implementation must not excessively entangle government with religion

Back 20

Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)

Front 21

Freedom of Speech

Back 21

1st Amendment

Front 22

Life, Liberty and Property

Back 22

14th Amendment

Front 23

Inadequate education case--depart. of ed defined "adequate" --Chapter 70 Finances-

Back 23

Driscoll v McDuffy

Front 24

District
Superior
Probabe
Small Claims
Appellate

Back 24

4 types of courts

Front 25

OLD- if there were over 50 household in one town, had to hire a teacher

Back 25

if over 100, had to have a grammar school... lot 16 held schoolhouse

Front 26

Expanded school to Kindergarten

Back 26

Kalamoo 1872

Front 27

Schools were prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a public education. Undocumented immigrant students are OBLIGATED to attend schol until they reach the age mandated by state law

Back 27

Plyler v. Doe 1982

Front 28

Compulsory State age in MA: 6-16
entrance of Kindergarten : 5

Back 28

state law

Front 29

MGL-CHapter 76

Back 29

Attendance and residency

Front 30

Pillow law-

Back 30

where you lay your head

Front 31

Chapter 76 secion 5

Back 31

whereyou lay your head

Front 32

chapter 76 secion 16

Back 32

exclusion

Front 33

homeless: take care of kids who don't have a home

Back 33

McKinney-Vinto act 2001

Front 34

Does not have an address/adequate, fixed, regular night-time residence

Back 34

HOMELESS

Front 35

student wanted to attend school on part-time basis after being homeschooled..

Back 35

swenson v. guthrie

Front 36

School system wanted to check validity of homeschooling

Back 36

brunelle v lynn district
found in favor of famiy

Front 37

sisters of orphanage not sending kids to public school .. found in favor of orphanage

Back 37

pierce v. society of sisters of holy name of jesus and mary

Front 38

amish family needed kids to stay home after 8th grade and work... they won

Back 38

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Front 39

responsible for making POLICIES

Back 39

school committee

Front 40

can't suspend special education student without holding a hearing and due process

Back 40

Mills v. board of education

Front 41

case in 1952-keep schools segregated

Back 41

Roberts. v. city of boston

Front 42

louisiana taxpayers didn't like that tax money was paying for education supplies in private (religious)schools

Back 42

mitchell v. helms

Front 43

Litmus Test:
1. does the law have a secular purpose?
2. does it advance or inhibit religion?
3. does it create an excessive entanglement between government and religion?

Back 43

Mitchell v. Helms

Front 44

8th grade graduation-invite clergyman to be a non-secular
court found in favor of school.. later high school grad.. courts overturned --created entanglement

Back 44

Lee v. Wiseman (providence 1992)

Front 45

e Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it passed a five part test developed by the Court in this case, titled the Private Choice Test. The decision was 5-4, with moderate justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor and conservative justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority.

Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to be constitutional it must meet all of the following criteria:

the program must have a valid secular purpose,
aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
there must be adequate nonreligious options.

Back 45

Zelman v. simons

Front 46

Student wanted to wear button "Happy Easter Dr. King" Principal said it would be a disruption.. gang violence... school rule-no symbols principal WON

Back 46

Guzick v. Drebus

Front 47

Facts:


Two public school students wore several "Co-ed Naked . . ." t-shirts that school officials deemed vulgar. When school officials told the students they could not wear the shirts, the students sued in federal court.

The federal appeals court eventually asked the state supreme court to interpret a state law that seemed to give students greater protection than they receive under the First Amendment.


Issue:


Whether, under Massachusetts law, public high school students are free to engage in any expression they choose, even if deemed vulgar by the school, as long as the speech is neither disruptive nor school-sponsored.


Holding:


In a unanimous decision, the court held that Massachusetts law protects students' rights to engage in vulgar, non-school-sponsored speech as long as it does not cause a disruption at school.

Back 47

Pyle v. School Committee of South Hadley, 423 Mass. 283, 667 N.E.2d 869 (1996).

Front 48

Olympic torch comes through town.. inappropriate banner , kids late there was a disruption.. bong hits 4 jesus
reduced to 8 day suspension

Back 48

MOrse v Fredrick

Front 49

newspaper article on sex .. fuled in favor of kids- kids voice started by students.. no grades , not published in house

Back 49

Gambino v fairfax

Front 50

employee at will

Back 50

less than NINETY days

Front 51

in any city.. who sits as chair of school committee?

Back 51

mayor

Front 52

professional status

Back 52

3 years under license
3 status:
preliminary
initial
professional

Front 53

can be released on:

Back 53

cause
good cause: reasonable action
just cause: greater standard specific to evaluation (professional status teacher) chapter 71 section 41

Front 54

PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE

Back 54

1. VERBAL DIRECTION AND INQUIRY
2. WRITTEN STATMENT OF EXPECTATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. CONSEQUENCE NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR ACTION
5. MUST SHOW THEIR HAS BEEN AN OFFER FOR IMPROVEMENT

Front 55

employee was released after he was found to have physicall... arbitrator's firm interferred.. supreme court said arbitrator could not do this

Back 55

Beverly v. geller

Front 56

March 17, 1995, the defendant Holmes signed a report summarizing hisinvestigation of allegations that a male teacher at Wakefield Junior HighSchool had sent "inappropriate notes" to one of his female students.Attached to the report were copies of the underlying documents that passedbetween the student and the teacher. The investigation involved the examinationof the teacher's "notes," interviews with at least six persons,including an extensive interview with the teacher who was accompanied by twounion representatives.

Back 56

WAKEFIELD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION vs. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OFWAKEFIELD & another.(1)

Front 57

due process for non-renewal
teachers have a right to know why they arenot renewed

Back 57

HULL

Front 58

No evaluation process, tried to fire a teacher

Back 58

Westbridgewater v. westbridgewater teachers' association

Front 59

every evaluation should have some type of improvement plan

Back 59

must be a paper trail

Front 60

evaulations must include five things

Back 60

1. have a claim (generalization of person's teaching)
2. evidence
3. piece that talks about interpretation and explain
4. judgement what the evaluator thought of evaluation
5. recommendations