Education Law Self Reflection Artifact

Legal issues are all around us in education whether we acknowledge it or not. They cover many different topics, from the fundamental rights of teachers and students to broader questions of equity, liability, and even child abuse. Understanding these laws, their interpretations and implications is essential for educators. These laws profoundly affect the way education is formed and the access students have. By studying the laws and cases around education, I can be informed and more efficiently teach to the needs and rights of my students.

Child Abuse #

Unfortunately, child abuse is a travesty that too many teachers will have to deal with during their careers. There were an estimated 3.8 million referrals for mistreated children made to child protection agencies (Schimmel, 2015, p 103). In Washington, child abuse or neglect covers multiple issues that can cause harm to a child, including several types of sexual abuse, injuries to health, welfare, or safety, and negligence or maltreatment (RCW 26.44.020). Protective services and laws have been created to ensure children receive their rights to nurture, health, and safety of both their physical and mental health (RCW 26.44.010). Washington state has put a duty on practitioners and professionals, referred to as mandated reporters, to report cases where they believe a child has been a victim of neglect or abuse (RCW 26.44.030).

As mandated reporters, educators have specific rules they must follow to stay in compliance with Washington state laws regarding child abuse. Once a teacher has reasonable suspicion about child abuse or neglect, they must make a report within 48 hours (RCW 26.44.030). The time limit is critical to protect against further abuse of the child. Mandated reporters who fail to report child abuse to the proper authorities will face serious legal consequences. Individuals will be subject to criminal prosecution as they are guilty of a gross misdemeanor (RCW 26.44.080). Timely and diligent reporting by mandated reporters is to ensure the safety of children in their care.

Educators who make reports “In good faith,” are protected from both civil and criminal prosecution retaliation (Schimmel, 2015, p109). As mandated reporters, they have a legal entitlement to immunity (RCW 26.44.060). This is to encourage transparency and accountability when reporting suspected child abuse or neglect. These laws ensure that individuals are protected, even if allegations turn out unsubstantiated, and alleviate the potential fear of legal repercussions. On the other hand, people who make false reports have no such protections. Child protection services will refer these offenders to law enforcement for investigations (RCW 26.44.061). False reporters will face misdemeanor charges (RCW 26.44.060).

One legal case that demonstrates the potential consequences of failing to report on time is that of Dr. Rosario C. Pesce, a school psychologist (Schimmer, 2015, p. 110). Pesce received information during counseling sessions about a student who experienced sexual abuse by a teacher at the school Pesce v. J. Sterling Morton High School, 830F.2d 789 (7th CIR. 1987). Pesce waited 10 days to report the suspected abuse, failing to comply with school and state policies. Pesce was suspended for 5 days and demoted (Schimmer, 2014, p. 110). He challenged this discipline as a violation of due process but was ultimately ruled against when the U.S. District Court of Appeals declared that the right to student safety overrides the right to student confidentiality.

As educators, the safety of our students is of paramount importance. We occupy a unique position in society to interact with vulnerable children on a daily basis and potentially gain their trust. It is our responsibility to protect them and attempt to reduce harm when possible. Watching for signs of abuse is one of these responsibilities. Teachers need to understand the development process of students so that they can recognize when signs signal things are off. There are several signs to watch for. Unexplained injuries can signal signs of physical abuse. Physical neglect can result in constant hunger or sleep deprivation. Sexual abuse is tricker to see, but students may have difficulty sitting or have tears in their clothes. Emotional maltreatment is equally important to watch for as it can lead students to lag in their physical development or fail to thrive (Schimmer, 2015, p 106-107).

Teacher Rights #

First and foremost, teachers are citizens and entitled to certain fundamental freedoms as defined by the constitution. In their personal lives they have freedom of speech, religion, assembly, redress for grievances, and due process. However, as employees of publicly funded institutions these freedoms apply differently in their role as teachers. In education, teachers have a vital role to play in passing on knowledge to generations and shaping the moral landscape and critical thinking skills in future generations. Therefore, while teachers are free to have personal beliefs, they are subject to maintaining a neutral viewpoint. Students have a right to form their own opinions without the burden of their teacher’s bias.

Freedom of Speech in public education is a nuanced issue that balances the rights given through the First Amendment while maintaining the interests of the school community. Much of the controversy around this issue comes when a teacher speaks out in disagreement with the school and/or administration. Courts will use the “Pickering Balancing Test” to examine the interests of the teacher and the interest of the state to promote public education (Schimmel, 2015, 134). Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, published a sarcastic letter criticizing the way funds were distributed through the school under the supervision of the superintendent. When the school dismissed him from his teaching position, Pickering argued that his letter should be protected under the First Amendment. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court who ruled in his favor Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).

The Pickering case established important precedents for cases involving freedom of speech rights for public employees. Through this case, courts declare that public school teachers do not relinquish their first amendment rights as part of their job requirements. Teachers have a right to speak out as citizens on matters of public concern, such as the way funds are spent in schools, without fear of retaliation. Teachers in fact are uniquely situated to speak out in this situation. The courts also recognized the government is responsible for protecting legitimate interests such as safety, discipline, and coworker harmony to maintain efficient operations (Schimmel, 2015, P. 136). The Pickering Decision is used as a balancing test to weigh the interests of the school versus the freedoms of the individual, particularly in matters of public concern.

The 5th and 14th Amendments have significant implications for teachers, particularly with due process in the context of employment and disciplinary proceedings (Schimel, 2015, p. 240). Due process is the right for a teacher to tell their side of a story when a complaint has been made. While this is not required for all school procedures, it is good to have all the information before decisions about discipline are made. While the core idea of due process is that of fairness, there are many different interpretations of how this should be applied to education. One common way due process comes into effect is when a teacher feels they were fired or not rehired as a disciplinary measure. While there are no specific steps courts follow when these cases come up, typically whether a teacher has a property interest, had a meaningful opportunity to be heard, retaliation, and if the school followed district policies are all considered.

One such case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Fred Doyle was dismissed from his role as a public-school teacher due to confrontational behavior with other staff and demeaning behavior with students. However, Doyle argued that he was dismissed due to publicly making critical comments while acting as president of the teacher association Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist, Bd. Of Educ. V. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1997). The court then had to determine if Doyle was dismissed due to legitimate school concerns or out of retaliation for an activity protected by a federal right, in this case, free speech. The Supreme Court declared that it is the individual’s responsibility to show that the protected activity was the determining factor in the dismissal and sent the case back to the lower courts. This framework is now referred to as the Mt. Healthy test and has significant implications for due process in education. By requiring courts to consider both the employees’ constitutional freedoms and the school’s interests it helps to safeguard personal freedoms while still recognizing safety and other ligament needs of educational institutions.

In addition to having legal freedoms, teachers also have legal responsibilities. Teachers are expected to use reasonable care when working with students. This includes providing a safe learning environment, proper supervision of students, and minimizing the risk of harm (Schimel, 2015, p. 65-66). Another legal responsibility educators have is that of in loco parents which translates to “in the place of parents.” While this authority has lessened over time, it implies that educators have the authority to act in the best interest of the student particularly in issues of safety (Schimel, 2015, p. 248). Shifts in legal and societal standards may influence the interpretation of these laws, therefore it is best if educators stay informed about relevant laws, regulations, and best practices to safeguard students.

Maintaining the balance between personal freedoms and professional responsibilities is essential to my role as a teacher. While I acknowledge my entitlement to fundamental freedoms such as speech, religion, and assembly in my personal life, I recognize the duties and obligations that come with being entrusted to shape young minds. It is my professional duty to provide a neutral learning environment where students can form their own opinions without the influence of my personal biases. I am not only responsible for academic content but also for providing a safe and supervised learning environment. Continuing to stay informed about relevant laws and best practices will help me to fulfill these roles effectively. Moreover, I need to be aware of school-specific policies and procedures regarding non-contract renewal, growth plans, firing, and disciplinary measures to uphold fairness and transparency in all interactions.

Student Rights #

Like teachers, students maintain their constitutional rights when attending school. However, the nature and scope of these rights differ due to their respective roles and relationship with the educational system. These rights encompass various facets found in our democratic society ranging from religious expression, freedom of speech, assembly, avenues for redress of grievances, and due process protections. Schools play a crucial role in upholding these rights while maintaining a safe learning environment for all students.

Students are frequently concerned about their freedom of expression since it encompasses a wide range of activities from clothing to religious expression, to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Freedom of Expression is protected under the First Amendment. While schools may restrict student expression through dress codes and other school policies, they cannot target specific viewpoints (Schimmel, 2015, p 179). These policies must be clear, not overly vague, or arbitrary, and have a specific purpose such as maintaining campus discipline. Furthermore, states have a responsibility to preserve first amendment rights for students and have the authority to grant even more protection by enacting their own legislation (Schimmel, 2015, p 178).

Freedom of expression for students was established through the Tinker case. In 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa wanted to show their anti-war feelings through black armbands. The school then declared black armbands to be against school policies and suspended the students (Shimmel, 2015 p 162). The students took their case to court where eventually the U.S. Supreme court ruled in their favor Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). The court declared that one of education’s responsibilities is to prepare students to become responsible citizens. Since there was no educational disruption due to the armbands, students were within their rights to continue wearing them. The court further explained that schools cannot prohibit student opinions unless it would substantially interfere on the rights of others.

Equally important to students is freedom of association. This primarily comes into play with the formation of school clubs. The Equal Access Act was passed in 1984 and prohibits high schools from denying a student group based on philosophical, religious, or political ideology. Schools have a few options with regards to establishing clubs. They may prohibit all school clubs, limit them to curriculum-related, or accept groups with differing viewpoints (schimmel, 2015, p 216). Whichever route a school takes, they are legally required to fund them all equally. Providing equal support to clubs does not equate to a school endorsement, meaning private speech within a club does not reflect the school’s viewpoints.

Students also have rights when it comes to discipline. Due process is a flexible concept for students attending public schools. Typically, the more serious the outcomes for the student, the more due process procedures need to be followed. Students facing long term suspensions and expulsions are entitled to have their side heard so that the school has all the information before making decisions (Schimmel, 2015, P.250). Miranda rights do not typically apply to school discipline cases, however with the introduction of police resource officers there are mixed interpretations of how this should be implemented. When a student faces potential criminal charges during school discipline cases, it is likely a student would have an entitlement to Miranda warnings.

Schools have to follow specific policies when searching students or confiscating items. Reasonable suspicion is needed regarding search and seizure. In general, lockers are considered school property and have no expectation of privacy, thereby allowing officials to conduct searches without a heightened level of suspicion (Schimmel, 2015, p. 265). However, personal items typically need a higher degree of suspicion to search ensuring privacy rights are protected while still balancing the needs of the school to maintain a safe and secure learning environment.

Reasonable suspicion falls under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court rules on how this applies in a school setting the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case. A teacher found some students smoking in the bathroom. Since school rules prohibited smoking the students were taken to the office for discipline. While there, one student opened her purse at the request of the vice principal. Her purse contained evidence that she sold drugs in addition to cigarettes. The search was challenged in court as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled that the school had reasonable cause to suspect evidence of broken school rules in the purse New Jersey v. T.L.O., 468 U.S. 1214 (1984). Reasonableness was defined to include if the action (in this case the search) was justifiable at the beginning and related to the scope of the situation. Schools have more leeway with reasonable suspicion when searching for weapons and drugs (Schimmer, 2015, p 264).

Student information is protected through the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA has five key protections. First, it requires school districts to notify parents of their rights every year the student attends. Second, it gives parents the right to see their child’s school records, both academic and disciplinary. Third, it created a process for parents to challenge records they disagree with. Fourth, FERPA protects student information from being accessed by outsiders without parent consent. Fifth, parents are entitled to complain to the U.S. Department of Education with concerns (Schimmel, 2015, p.375).

FERPA has a few exceptions for sharing student information, usually with other professionals who will be working with the student. Schools may share information in emergency situations. Financial aid and subpoenas are also legitimate reasons for information sharing (Schimmel, 2015 p. 378). FERPA does not protect teacher records, any information that would be general knowledge in the community, or information that may be contained in a directory. It also does not allow parents to contest their student’s grades. Courts have consistently ruled schools have the wisdom to decide grading policies (Schimmer, 2015, p. 385).

Student rights are constitutionally protected and an important consideration for any teacher. It is important to know and follow school procedures for discipline. As a special education teacher, I may need to advocate on behalf of my students to make sure their rights are maintained. Additionally, FERPA is also incredibly important in special education. Students have a multitude of private information in their IEP, and I will be responsible for maintaining that privacy. Students despite their youth, are still deserving and entitled to privacy, respect and many of the same considerations afforded to adults. Lastly, I can be disciplined or for violating FERPA. I need to use care when deciding what student information may be shared with others.

Education Equity #

Equity in education helps to address some of the imbedded systemic racism which manifests in numerous ways such as funding disparities, resource distribution, disciplinary practices, dress codes, and access to quality education. These disparities are often influenced by factors like socio-economic status, race, ethnicity, gender, or disability status. Some of the earliest equity issues revolve around school desegregation. Over time equity initiatives have led to the creation of laws in the United States including Title IX, the Individual Disability Education Act (IDEA), Equal Pay Act, and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs.

Several of these laws address gender inequalities. Title IX Prohibits the discrimination based on sex in school ran athletic competitions, with an exception for contact sports. This was specifically created to address the funding and access disparity between boys’ and girls’ sports. Frequently there would be a boys’ team, but not a girls’ team. This law gave permission to girls to try out for the boys’ teams when there was not a girl equivalent. Schools can create separate teams when there is enough interest from both genders (Schimmel, 2015, p 339). Title IX is not an employment act and has not been applied to coaching positions. However, the Equal Pay act of 1963 and Title VII address wage difference between men and women employed in school districts. Teachers who have similar job duties cannot have differences in pay based on gender (Schimmel, 2015, P. 328).

Students with diverse needs also need laws to support access to education. IDEA ensures that students with disabilities have access to free accessible public education (FAPE). Before this law’s creation in the 1970’s, over half of students with disabilities were not participating in public education. IDEA emphases the importance of individualized education programs (IEP). IDEA also requires schools to provide students with disabilities access to general education to the maximum extent possible. IDEA serves all students ages 3-21 (Schimmel, 2105, p 354). Schools must follow these regulations to receive federal funding.

One case that exemplifies the need for IDEA happened in 1982 when Amy Rowley’s parents sued her school for failing to provide her with a qualified sign language interpreter Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Rowley’s IEP specified that she was entitled to an interpreter, however the school decided that since she was doing better than the average student in classes, her hearing devices and speech therapy were enough support. The court sided with the school declaring that FAPE does not require schools to maximize a student’s potential, only to give them access to adequate education (Schimmel, 2015, p 356).

The case of Jose Garcia demonstrated how specific circumstances can change the way cases are ruled Garcia v. Grandview Sch. Dist. No. 200, No. CV-10-3118-EFS (E.D. Wash. Dec. 3, 2013). In Grandview Washington, 2013, Jose Garcia successfully sued his prior school district for failing to provide a sign-language interpreter for his schooling. On the surface this is remarkably similar to the Rowley case, however, it had several key differences. One stark difference was that Jose was placed in a self-contained special education classroom denying him access to general education. Secondly, the school failed to follow IDEA regulations by failing to allow the mother to fully participate in IEP meetings. The court ruled in Garcia’s favor because he did not receive the education he was entitled to. An independent evaluation found no learning disability that kept Jose from learning. His lack of academic progress was due to a lack of access to the curriculum. The school district was required to pay for a private education plan to compensate for this deficiency.

The Garcia case shows another area where we frequently see a need for equity in education. Students coming from multi-lingual households have a disproportional representation in special education. Tests for special education do not always account for language or cultural differences in the way students process information. Additionally, their parents may be unfamiliar with school bureaucracy and less likely to advocate for their students. Diversity initiatives, bilingual education programs, and multicultural education have grown to support these students.

While schools are not required to teach in a student’s first language, they are required to support their multicultural students. The Bilingual Education Act from 1968 established federal funds to teach English to students. Later, in the 1970’s The Supreme Court further codified this by ruling that students who do not speak English are denied an education when there is no systemic program in place to support them Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). The Lau case was pivotal for students learning English. Before this case, the societal expectation was that if a student is in the room with the class, learning is happening. It was estimated that 1,800 Chinese American monolingual students were receiving their education in this manner. Ther parents went to court to advocate for their rights to accessible curriculum under Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment (Schimmel, 2015, p 368). The supreme court sided with the parents stating that students who do not understand English cannot have meaningful learning. While Lau v. Nichols did not establish a specific bilingual policy, it did push schools to take steps towards equal educational access for all students regardless of background.

U.S. policy has continued to attempt to address some of the inequalities in educational access. Under the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), schools are to support English proficiency and are provided federal funds for these programs (Schimmel, 2015, p. 370). Part of this ach was the English Language Acquistion Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act which aimed at helping all students to become proficient in the English language rather than focus on bilingualism. More recently the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has replaced NCLB continuing to support both multilingual students and other students with diverse needs. The ESSA pushes schools to create an accessible curriculum and maintain high academic expectations for all students. Schools are required to create evidence-based plans for students struggling academically (Jones, n.d).

As a future special education teacher, education equity is particularly important. It will be my job to advocate for students to receive an education with high expectations. Reflecting on the impact of programs like Title IX, IDEA and those supporting our diverse student populations, I am reminded about how transformative education can be when there is adequate access. These laws have paved the way for inclusivity and empowered students to succeed at their personal goals. When I attended public education, Title IX granted me the opportunity to participate in wrestling before the establishment of women’s teams and reinforced the idea of how equity has a tangible impact in individual lives. Education equity is not only a professional obligation, but a moral imperative. It drives me to support students by advocating against systemic injustices.

Tort Liability #

In tort liability, negligence and immunity are two important legal concepts that play a significant role in determining liability for injuries or harm suffered by students or other individuals at school. Tort immunity is the idea that public school funds should not be paid to private individuals (Schimmel, 2015, P. 64). This doctrine may shield public schools from being sued for certain actions or decisions that happened during ordinary duties. Tort immunity is not absolute and is subject to limitations from state laws.

Negligence is the failure to provide reasonable care for students under a teacher’s supervision in a way that causes harm or injury (Schimmel, 2015, P. 65). This does not cover every situation, only the ones where it is reasonable to foresee that a student may be injured such as running on asphalt or not wearing goggles with chemicals. There are four main things that would need to establish a negligence legal claim. The first is to determine if the teacher had a duty to keep the student safe. The second is to determine if the teacher failed to fulfill their duty of care for the student. Reasonable care assumes that when situations are more dangerous, more care is needed. Third, there was carelessness that directly resulted in injury or harm. The fourth stipulation is that the student’s injury resulted in provable damages. If all four of these factors are proven, then an educator may be held liable.

St. Peter’s Catholic school was taken to court for negligence when one student, Margaret Sheehan received injuries to her eye during recess Sheehan v. St. Peter’s Catholic School, 291 Minn. 1, 188 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1971). A group of girls were told to sit on a log and observe the boy’s baseball game. After the teacher left, the boys began throwing pebbles and injured Margaret. The school was found guilty of negligence because the students should have been supervised. A judge on the supreme court of Minnesota reasoned that youths are known to act impulsively without thought of repercussions and it is for that exact reason that they need supervision (Schimmel, 2015, P. 65). Basically, the school and staff should have known better than to leave the kids alone with opportunities to hurt each other.

One case where the teacher was not found liable was the Mancha case. In 1971, teachers took a group of students to the Field Museum of Natural History where one student was unfortunately attacked by racists. The teachers were charged with failing to adequately supervise the students. Mancha v. Field Museum of Natural History, 283 N.E.2nd 868 (Minn. 1971). The Illinois Supreme Court found it unreasonable to expect teachers to be held liable for unforeseeable criminal activity by third parties. The museum was foreseen as an educational experience and not a place of danger (Schimmel, 2015, p 67). While teachers have a duty to protect against foreseeable risks, they cannot guarantee protection against all dangers.

In both cases, the students were around the same age. However, the determining factor was whether educators could have foreseen a situation for injury. In the case of Mancha, the museum was expected to be a safe place, while in the case of Sheehan, students are known to act impulsively at recess. In considering these cases, I am reminded of the profound responsibility teachers have in safeguarding their students. Negligence, as defined by the failure to provide reasonable care, underscores the importance of proactive risk management, particularly students who are younger or incapable of making risk assessments themselves. Active supervision will protect the students and foster a culture of safety and trust in the classroom.

Conclusion #

A thorough understanding of the legal landscape in education is indispensable for educators. By staying informed of legal developments in education I can reduce liability by creating a safe nurturing space for students with adequate supervision and thoughtful risk prevention. Through developing a deeper understanding of our diverse cultures and the unique needs of students, I can better advocate for my students ensuring equitable access to education. Understanding student and teacher rights helps me know how to handle discipline procedures and what protections we have. Child protection laws underscore the importance for creating positive relationships with students where they feel safe to confide in me and I know enough about their lives to recognize abuse and neglect.

Resources #