The so-called “zero-tolerance laws” aim to deprive educators of discretion in dealing with certain narrow areas of student behavior. Such laws became widespread in the 1990s due to a federal law requiring all schools to suspend for one year any student who brought a firearm into school, for example. If the law is enforced as intended, educators may need to assist administrators in enforcing these laws if, for any reason, a student has an object on school property that meets the definitions of the law and is often included in school district bylaws with benign names. such as the district`s school safety policy. Teachers should familiarize themselves with their district`s policies and definitions as part of the policy of those elements and behaviours that may be punishable by long exclusion and those that must be punished by long exclusion. Also covered are tort liability, teachers` liability for the safety and well-being of their students, and teachers` protection from defamation. Educators will find practical suggestions, vignettes and summaries of legal opinions with real-world applications. Don`t wait for a problem to occur. Read this book and get ready.
Teachers enjoy a range of protections under the law to ensure they are protected from unconstitutional harm and to protect their ability to effectively perform the essential service of educating children in our communities. Important safeguards for teachers include: Presenting oneself to the trustee or superintendent generally does not protect the commissioned reporter. It is advisable to consult such professionals while developing your own suspicion of child abuse. However, protection from failure to report and associated legal remedies are generally only granted upon reporting to law enforcement or the state child protection agency. However, in the 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that a school may require that speech in schools conform to standards of courtesy for public speech, and schools and teachers may insist that student language is not hostile, rude, suggestive or indecent. In other words, teachers don`t have to put up with bad language in their classrooms and other parts of the school environment and process. The court noted that this was part of the school`s educational function: to teach and exemplify the courtesy and appropriate standards of communication that students will encounter in the adult world. Such discipline and enforcement does not violate the rights of First Amendment minors in K-12 public school attitudes as long as no particular or other policy or other views appropriately formulated — and age-appropriate — are removed solely because of their views. Do you know what you can do and say in your school and what you can`t do? Most teacher training programs offer little or no education on education law. When teachers need advice on employment or classroom issues, research can be frustrating, time-consuming or costly. Teachers will find answers to their most frequently asked legal questions in this easy-to-read book. The main topics are: Everything teachers need to know about school law Disputes between colleagues can arise.
It may also require you to contact the RA or another union representative to be present when the matter is discussed with the administration. Make sure you are aware of the nature of the meeting BEFORE you meet with the administration. This can be difficult because colleagues are usually emotional about what`s going on, and usually the RA is also a colleague. Remember, AR is only there to take notes and be an extra pair of eyes and ears for both parties. The RA does not speak or make any decisions about this. Be sure to ask for a copy of the notes the RA took for your records during the meeting. “Uses real-world applications and problems to apply legal concepts and proven decisions to the entire educational environment. The chapters are filled with legal references and notes for further research and clarification. At the very least, you should be aware of your district`s policy and know that if a student engages in violence with the object that should have caused severe punishment, or acts violently after the behavior you have allowed to pass, may be in legal danger, especially if it becomes known that the educator was aware of the subject or behavior. Educators who do not agree with these zero-tolerance laws and who do not want to take risks to protect students would do well to strictly follow these laws for the time being and focus their energy on repealing, restricting or clarifying these laws.
Another step teachers and those who prohibit student behaviour must take is to determine whether a student`s communication poses a “real threat.” Students regularly say that their speech – which is perceived as threatening, intimidating or hateful – should be humorous. This can be a significant challenge, given the types of “humorous” speeches students face in the media, presidential campaigns, and television shows. In general, due to concerns about terrorist threats and state and county policies regarding bullying and cyberbullying, schools and teachers tend to play it safe and take very seriously any speech that could reasonably be considered threatening, intimidating or inciting violence. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the school may prohibit, censor, or alter speech that could reasonably be considered an “imprimatur” of the school (official school approval/representation) as long as such language regulation or suppression is based on a legitimate educational purpose. Thus, teachers and schools in most states can censor, ban, restrict or alter student speech in school newspapers, with the notable exception of at least Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts and North Dakota — states that have provided additional protection for high school newspapers from administrative censorship. Public school teachers are in a unique position because they are individuals and employees of the state. As a result, school districts and boards have a concerted interest in ensuring that the messages students receive from their teachers align with the goals and visions of the school and district. In my experience, most educators I deal with refuse to strictly enforce the law to unduly punish a child or hinder their future by applying zero tolerance in cases that do not fit their own discretionary ideas and values. It is hard not to welcome such protection of children from the effects of a relatively rigid and procrusque law or policy.
Teachers and administrators who think it is a good idea to take the butter knife (real case) or the small charm bracelet gun (another real case), or who remind the student who was duck hunting and left a shotgun in the holder of his van in the parking lot not to do it again (another real case), Instead of having the student expelled for an excessively long period of time, those who assume the risk if such a student later causes damage with the object or weapon or facsimile of a weapon. This is one of the reasons why the American Bar Association called for the repeal of zero-tolerance laws in schools to give discretion to educators based on the facts of the case and the nature of the student`s culpability or danger to the school environment.
Comments are closed.