• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/60

Click to flip

60 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Equality in Education
14th Amendment to Constitution
equal protection state and federal law
Separate but equal
Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)
Cited the equal protection clause of 14th amendment
laws were unconstitutional and ruled that separate schools deprive minority children of equal educational opportunities
Brown V. Board of Education 1954
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
TINKER vs. Des Moines Independent community school district (1969)
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
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Three step test for applying the First Amendment freedom of expression clause to public employees, including public school teachers.
Teachers' Speech Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle (1977)
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
Per-Pupil expenditure San Antonio Independent School District V. Rodriguez (1973)
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
Lau V. Nichols (1974)
Court determined that individuals with disabilities must receive IEPs. Must be reasonably designed to provide educational benefits.
Board of Education v. Rowley (1982)
Can an employer reasonably accomodate an employee with a disability? -it depends -accomodation is usually reasonable, therefore REQUIRED
School Board V. Arline (1987)
Public school officials may not force students to salute the flag. The students in this case were Jehovah's witneses
WV State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
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
Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District no. 26 v. Pico
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
GOss v. Lopez (1975)
8th amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment -student can bring civil suit--teacher can be discharged
Ingraham v. wright (1977)
Searches --students are protected by 4th amendment against unwarranted searches--school authorities only need reasonable SUSPICION
New Jersey v. TLO(85)
Random drug testing of student athletes is ok--constitutional
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)
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
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools(1992)
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.
Gebser v. Lago VIsta INdependent School District (1998)
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
Honig v Doe (1988)
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
Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)
Freedom of Speech
1st Amendment
Life, Liberty and Property
14th Amendment
Inadequate education case--depart. of ed defined "adequate" --Chapter 70 Finances-
Driscoll v McDuffy
District
Superior
Probabe
Small Claims
Appellate
4 types of courts
OLD- if there were over 50 household in one town, had to hire a teacher
if over 100, had to have a grammar school... lot 16 held schoolhouse
Expanded school to Kindergarten
Kalamoo 1872
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
Plyler v. Doe 1982
Compulsory State age in MA: 6-16
entrance of Kindergarten : 5
state law
MGL-CHapter 76
Attendance and residency
Pillow law-
where you lay your head
Chapter 76 secion 5
whereyou lay your head
chapter 76 secion 16
exclusion
homeless: take care of kids who don't have a home
McKinney-Vinto act 2001
Does not have an address/adequate, fixed, regular night-time residence
HOMELESS
student wanted to attend school on part-time basis after being homeschooled..
swenson v. guthrie
School system wanted to check validity of homeschooling
brunelle v lynn district
found in favor of famiy
sisters of orphanage not sending kids to public school .. found in favor of orphanage
pierce v. society of sisters of holy name of jesus and mary
amish family needed kids to stay home after 8th grade and work... they won
Wisconsin v. Yoder
responsible for making POLICIES
school committee
can't suspend special education student without holding a hearing and due process
Mills v. board of education
case in 1952-keep schools segregated
Roberts. v. city of boston
louisiana taxpayers didn't like that tax money was paying for education supplies in private (religious)schools
mitchell v. helms
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?
Mitchell v. Helms
8th grade graduation-invite clergyman to be a non-secular
court found in favor of school.. later high school grad.. courts overturned --created entanglement
Lee v. Wiseman (providence 1992)
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.
Zelman v. simons
Student wanted to wear button "Happy Easter Dr. King" Principal said it would be a disruption.. gang violence... school rule-no symbols principal WON
Guzick v. Drebus
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.
Pyle v. School Committee of South Hadley, 423 Mass. 283, 667 N.E.2d 869 (1996).
Olympic torch comes through town.. inappropriate banner , kids late there was a disruption.. bong hits 4 jesus
reduced to 8 day suspension
MOrse v Fredrick
newspaper article on sex .. fuled in favor of kids- kids voice started by students.. no grades , not published in house
Gambino v fairfax
employee at will
less than NINETY days
in any city.. who sits as chair of school committee?
mayor
professional status
3 years under license
3 status:
preliminary
initial
professional
can be released on:
cause
good cause: reasonable action
just cause: greater standard specific to evaluation (professional status teacher) chapter 71 section 41
PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE
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
employee was released after he was found to have physicall... arbitrator's firm interferred.. supreme court said arbitrator could not do this
Beverly v. geller
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.
WAKEFIELD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION vs. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OFWAKEFIELD & another.(1)
due process for non-renewal
teachers have a right to know why they arenot renewed
HULL
No evaluation process, tried to fire a teacher
Westbridgewater v. westbridgewater teachers' association
every evaluation should have some type of improvement plan
must be a paper trail
evaulations must include five things
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