Source: http://legalclips.nsba.org/?paged=143
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 01:38:08
Document Index: 478497747

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 104', '§ 504', '§ 504']

Tagged as Bibles, distribution of materials, First Amendment, Florida, LIberty Counsel, World Changers
The Naples News reports that the Collier County School Board (CCSB) appears to have reached a settlement agreement with World Changers of Florida, a local Christian organization that has been seeking to distribute the Bibles in Collier County’s public schools. The suit was brought after World Changers of Florida President Jerry Rutherford’s requests in 2008 and 2009 to distribute Bibles in Collier County School District (CCSD) middle and high schools were denied. World Changers of Florida filed the suit in the federal district court challenging CCSD’s decision to prohibit its members from passing out free Bibles on Religious Freedom Day, which is held every Jan. 16. World Changers is being represented by attorneys from Liberty Counsel.
Horatio Mihet, an attorney representing World Changers, said Rutherford had previously been allowed to distribute Bibles provided he followed the guidelines outlined in the Peck v. Upshur County Board of Education decision. The guidelines allow for Bibles to be placed on an unmanned table for distribution in places where students normally congregate and where the students would not feel that they were being watched or pressured. However, attorney Jim Fox, who is representing CCSD, pointed out that the question of whether Rutherford was passive is disputed in an affidavit signed by CCSD attorney Jon Fishbane provided to the court.
CCSB’s policy requires nonprofit organizations to obtain approval of the superintendent and a Community Request Committee, whose members are appointed by the superintendent, in order to distribute literature on school campuses. The policy also states that requests must be “carefully reviewed to ensure that such activities promote student interests, provide educational benefit to the students, and do not exploit the school system, its employees, students or parents.” Fox argued in court that CCSD is entitled deference in regard to its policy. “Government ought not and cannot appear to favor one group over another,” he said. Mihet countered that the school district does not have a right to interpret its policies as it sees fit, should that interpretation exclude another’s freedom of speech.
According to Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mathew Staver, the preliminary agreement reached by the attorneys of both parties, ” . . . allows World Changers to have a presence at school on Religious Freedom Day and results in payment (by the district) of attorney’s fees for our time.” Staver said the agreement will allow the World Changers to leave Bibles in Collier middle and high schools on Religious Freedom Day, allowing the students to take a Bible if they wish.
Source: Naples News, 9/7/10, By Katherine Albers
[Editor's Note: In July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (AR, IA, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD) upheld a lower court’s issuance of a permanent injunction barring the distribution of Bibles to elementary school students on school property during the school day. A summary of the opinion is available at the first link below.
The Peck v. Upshur decision was a ruling by the Fourth Circuit (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV) holding that a school board’s policy permitting religious groups to engage in passive distribution of Bibles in secondary schools one day a year by making the Bibles available at an unmanned tables in halls of the schools does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. A summary of the opinion is available to COSA members at the second link below.]
NSBA School Law pages on Roark v. South Iron R-1 Sch. Dist.
COSA database on Peck v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ.
Tagged as California, drug testing, extracurricular activities
The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in a unanimous unpublished decision has upheld a trial court’s issuance of an preliminary injunction prohibiting Shasta Union High School District (SUHSD) from enforcing its mandatory random drug testing of non-athlete high school students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities. The court also rejected the school district’s request that it address the merits of the students’ claims that the policy violates the privacy and search and seizure provisions of the California Constitution and, instead, limited its review to whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
SUHSD’s policy requires students to submit to mandatory drug testing as a condition of participating in “competitive representational activities [CRAs],” which in practice includes not only extracurricular activities but also mandated curricular classes and co-curricular activities used for grading purposes in the mandated classes. A group of students affected by the policy and their parents filed suit in a California state superior court (trial court). They claimed the policy violates the California Constitution’s right to privacy and its search and seizure provisions.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s granting of the injunction. It stated that in order for the students to establish a valid privacy claim they must show: “(1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) a serious invasion of the privacy interest.” It emphasized that these requirements were merely “threshold elements” utilized to screen out insignificant intrusions of a privacy interest. Even if they are satisfied, the court must still ”weigh[] and balanc[e] the justification for the conduct in question against the intrusion on privacy . . . .” The appellate court found, as the trial court had, that the students’ protected privacy interests were implicated “by testing the urine sample and by requiring the student’s parent to disclose any medications the student is taking.” It likewise agreed with the trial court that while students’ expectation of privacy is reduced, it is not extinguished. Noting, among other reasons, that a number of the CRAs are part of the curriculum, the court concluded that the students ”were likely to prevail on establishing a sufficient expectation of privacy to assert a claim for violation of the constitutional right to privacy.” It also found, given the circumstances involved in providing and collecting urine samples, the ”trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiffs likely to prevail in establishing a serious, as opposed to de minimis or insignificant, privacy invasion.”
The appellate court then weighed and balanced SUHSD’s justification for expanding the drug testing policy against the intrusion resulting from mandatory urine testing. It first found that SUHSD had “not shown a specialized need to target students participating in CRA’s for drug and alcohol testing.” It also noted that SUHSD’s justification was diminished by the fact that ”the effectiveness of random drug testing to deter drug use is subject to sharp dispute.” Last, because the appellate court found that the injunction could be upheld on the privacy claim, it did not address the students’ search and seizure or equal protection claims.
Brown v. Shasta Union High Sch. Dist., No. C061972 (Cal. App. Ct. Sept. 2, 2010)
[Editor's Note: In August, The Sacramento Bee reported on oral argument in the case. The news story noted that the appellate court's three justices "did not appear receptive" to SUHSD’s arguments for upholding the policy. A summary of the article, including a link to a summary of the trial court's opinion, is available below.]
NSBA Legal Clips archive on Brown v. SUHSD
The Colorado Attorney General’s Office (AG) has informed the Colorado Board of Education (CBOE) that local school district officials may not divulge the criminal arrests of licensed teachers, which are provided to them weekly by the Colorado Department of Education (CDE), according to a report in the Pueblo Chieftain carried by Education Week. According to the AG, breaching the controversial shroud of secrecy that drapes teacher arrest records maintained by the state constitutes a crime. “It’s a misdemeanor,” punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $100, said Antony Dyl, a senior in the AG’s office. The AG’s opinion came in response to a question posed by CBOE during a special meeting of its members to discuss solving the patchwork approach that school districts in the state employ to release information they receive about the arrests of employees. CBOE chairman Bob Schaffer has been critical that parents aren’t notified uniformly when teachers who have access to their children are arrested.
A 2008 law requires CDE to notify school districts of employees’ arrests on a weekly basis. Each week the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) provides CDE a list of licensed educators statewide who have been ticketed or arrested. CDE then forwards the full list to every school district and charter school in the state. While arrest records are open to public inspection under the Colorado Open Record Act, they are protected from release by statutes that apply to personnel information maintained by school districts and CDE. “That is one glaring inconsistency in the law,” Schaffer said. “A record that was public one day just becomes secret the next day.” However, Dyl points out: “In terms of the information held by the (state education) department, it’s confidential when it’s held by the department, and it’s held confidential when the school district receives it from the department.”
Another issue raised by Schaffer is that the weekly CBI reports contain a list of all licensees, including those with inactive licenses, such as retirees. Shaffer said the vast number of inactive licensees who are subject to CBI’s reporting to CDE and the release of the full weekly report to each district in the state make the process more cumbersome than is necessary. “The volume of data is an issue now,” Schaffer said. “That is a terrible abuse of human resources for districts to have to do that work,” Bruce Caughey, deputy director of the Colorado Association of School Executives, agreed, referring to the voluminous reports that land on superintendents’ desks each week as “data dumps.”
Marti Houser, general counsel for the Colorado Education Association, which represents teachers, is concerned that a modified policy to allow notification could jeopardize teachers’ rights. “Our interest would be making sure the liberty and due-process rights of our members are protected in this process,” Houser said. “We happen to think reporting arrests are a little extreme.” She also noted such actions could prove premature because not every arrest results in a conviction. Nonetheless, Schaffer believes that parental notification of teacher arrests is in order, although he concedes that there is some dissent to that position on the state education board. He’s hopeful that policy changes in the months ahead will be developed at the state and local levels. “But I recognize there are contradictory and competing statutes on the issue of what’s public and what’s not,” he said.
Source: Education Week, 9/2/10, By Patrick Malone, Pueblo Chieftain
[Editor's Note: While it appears that otherwise public information is protected from disclosure because of the method and manner in which the information is reported to school districts, the Wyoming Tribune Eagle (WTE) reports that the Laramie County District court has ruled that the names and salaries of all Laramie County School District 1 (LCSD1) employees are public records subject to disclosure. The court stated: "(O)ne burden of public employment is that any person who makes a proper request may learn the compensation paid to a public employee, regardless of the level at which he toils for a government entity." It also pointed out that the Wyoming Education Code "does not contain an expressed statement that information concerning the identity of a school district’s employees is confidential information." A summary of the article is available below.]
NSBA Legal Clips archive on disclosure of teacher salaries
In Finance, Race to the Top
Tagged as Department of Education, Doggett, Duncan, education jobs bill, Perry, Texas, Texas Association of School Boards
Texas’ governor applies for federal funds, but takes issue with conditions attached to acceptance
The Houston Chronicle reports that Gov. Rick Perry, who initially would not commit to applying for $830 million in federal funds from the education jobs measure, has signed off on the state’s application to the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Nevertheless, the governor sent a letter urging the state’s school superintendents to call Congress to criticize the passage of an amendment that attached strings to Texas getting the money. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) sponsored the provision that singled out Texas in the $26 billion jobs protection bill. Perry, in his letter to school administrators, raised doubts that Texas’ application would be approved, writing that "the actions of a Texas congressman, with votes from the congressional majority, make it unlikely that your school will receive its portion of the $830 million in federal education funds this year."
Texas, however, is not guaranteed the funding. The amendment by Doggett asks Perry to commit that the emergency federal money will not be used to replace state funds and that education funding will not be cut more than any other program through 2013. In the state’s application, Texas education commissioner Robert Scott wrote that Texas law prohibits the Legislature from binding future state lawmakers, so the governor cannot commit to spending down the line. "If the U.S. Department of Education approves our application, the $830 million will immediately be made available to Texas school districts," Scott wrote to Education Secretary Arne Duncan. "The intent for these funds is to add to the existing state public education appropriation for fiscal year 2011 already enacted into law." Doggett’s amendment stemmed from concerns that Texas would use the federal funds to fill budget gaps outside of education, as happened in 2009 when the education stimulus dollars melted into the state’s general revenue.
Doggett said it was unnecessary to scour the Texas Constitution or old court rulings "looking for excuses to deprive our local schools of these needed dollars." Perry, he said, only needs to give an assurance that Texas won’t cut education spending by a larger proportion than other public services. "We didn’t send this federal aid for education to Texas to plug a state budget gap; we sent it to help our schoolchildren," Doggett said.
Source: Houston Chronicle, 9/3/10, By Ericka Mellon
[Editor's Note: For background on Gov. Perry's ongoing dispute with ED and Rep. Doggett, and the suggested compromise by Jacqueline Lain of the Texas Association of School Boards, see the link below.]
NSBA Legal Clips on Gov. Perry’s dispute with ED September 7, 2010
Tagged as ELL, Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Minnesota, Title VI
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (ND, SD, MN, NE, IA, MO, AR) three-judge panel has ruled that a group of immigrant students has failed to state a valid claim for discrimination based on national origin under Title VI or a valid claim of discrimination based on the failure to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), even though a Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) investigation concluded that the students’ high school was not adequately meeting their educational needs.
The students in question were refugees from Somalia or Ethiopia. Because they arrived in the U.S. with little or no formal education and limited English language skill, the students were all assigned to Abraham Lincoln High School (ALHS) from 1999 to 2006. Only five of the 13 students graduated after either fulfilling the state graduation requirements or being excused from those requirements. The other eight never graduated because they were not able to pass the requisite statewide exams, the Minnesota Basic Skills Tests (MBSTs). In 2005, a group of ALHS students, including some of the plaintiffs, filed a complaint with MDE, alleging the school was not adequately meeting their educational needs.
The subsequent MDE investigation concluded that ALHS was was failing to provide adequate educational services in a number of ways. Among those failures, MDE determined that ALHS had not used a successful method to recognize disabilities, with the result that “[i]t is highly probable that ALHS . . . missed the identification of numerous special education students each of the past three school years.” MDE also cited Special School District No.1 (SSD1) and ALHS for violating Minnesota law by failing to develop remediation plans for students who had not yet passed one or more of the required MBSTs at least two years before their anticipated graduation dates. The students then filed suit in federal district court against ALHS and SSD1, alleging violations of EEOA and Title VI. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims.
The Eighth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. It rejected the Title VI claim, finding that the students had failed to present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that ALHS had intentionally discriminated against them based on national origin. With respect to the claim based on substandard curriculum and programming, the panel agreed with the lower court that there was "no genuine issue of fact regarding discriminatory intent, because there was no strong evidence of animus based on statements of school personnel, and because the students were unable to identify any ‘comparator’ – a person not a member of the same allegedly protected class – who was treated more favorably than the plaintiffs by ALHS."
As to the claim that SSD1′ s policy of delaying special education testing until the students completed three years of English language learner (ELL) classes was discriminatory, the panel rejected the students’ argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that there was no need for evidence of "comparators" to show discriminatory intent because the policy was discriminatory on its face. It first suggested that because the students had not raised it in the district court to defend against the motion for summary judgment, the argument was most likely waived. Nonetheless, it found the contention without merit because the policy did not apply to students based on national origin, which is a required element of Title VI, rather it applied only to those students categorized as ELL students. The panel stated: "A policy that treats students with limited English proficiency differently than other students in the district does not facially discriminate based on national origin."
Turning to the EEOA claim, the panel again agreed with the district court that, even assuming the students had presented sufficient evidence to raise an issue of genuine fact on the question of whether SSD1 took “appropriate action” to overcome the students’ language barriers, the EEOA claim failed because neither injunctive relief nor monetary damages are available to the students. Injunctive relief was no longer available to them because none of the students currently attends ALHS or is likely to return to the student. Moreover, ALHS no longer exists, having been converted to a charter school, which is not under the authority of SSD1. Because SSD1 could no longer "bind the school, a court order directed at the District could not redress the alleged injuries of the students." As to the request for monetary damages, the panel said "the language and structure of the EEOA firmly indicate that Congress authorized only equitable remedies for violations of the statute." It concluded, therefore, " The district court correctly held that monetary damages are unavailable under the EEOA."
Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High Sch., No. 08-3041 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2010)
[Editors Note: In August, Education Week reported that according to recent reviews of the school systems in Boston, Buffalo, NY, Portland, OR, and Seattle, those districts are not providing English language learner (ELL) students with the level of assistance in learning English that is guaranteed under federal law. The reviews, which where conducted by state officials or private independent groups, dovetail with current efforts by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to step up enforcement of civil rights laws in schools. A summary of the article is available below.]
NSBA Legal Clips archive on federal enforcement of EEOA
According to CBS 3 Springfield, Frontier Regional School District (FRSD) has adopted a policy that bans peanuts and all tree nut products. FRSD previously banned peanut products, but decided to extend the ban, creating a "nut safe policy," because of the recent rise in children being diagnosed with nut allergies. School Health Coordinator Sarah Mitchell says "We’ve decided to go nut free for a couple of reasons. One, because of the cross contamination. Peanuts are obviously processed in plants where other nuts are processed so we just felt that we couldn’t guarantee that any of the nuts didn’t have peanut exposure in them. Also, we have pure nut allergies."
School officials believe banning nuts altogether will help ensure students who are allergic won’t be exposed while at school. According to school nurse Lisa Winter, an allergic reaction can involve hives, then respiratory problems requiring treatment. School officials say they are not totally sure how many students have nut allergies, but even if it’s only one, it’s worth it. Winter says "Because we’re talking about something that is life threatening. So, certainly we don’t want to put anybody in harms way. The group has to sometimes take care of the individuals."
Source: CBS3 Springfield, 9/7/10, By Staff
[Editor's Note: The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) provides "School Guidelines for Managing Students with Food Allergies," available at the first link below. In October 2008, Wenatchee World reported that a Washington student was charged with using peanut butter to assault an allergic classmate. A summary of the article is available at the second link below.]
FAAN guidelines
NSBA School Law pages on peanut assault
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (CA, OR, WA, AZ, MT, ID, NV, AK, HI, GU, MP) three-judge panel has ruled that the parents of two children with autism stated a valid claim for damages under§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the Hawaii Department of Education (HDE) for denying their children meaningful access to the benefit of a public education. The panel concluded that the parents’ allegations that HDE failed to provide the children with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities through autism-specific special education services, and failed to design the children’s Individualized Education Programs (IEP) to meet their needs as adequately as the needs of non-disabled students were met, were sufficient to raise a question of material fact as to whether HDE was deliberately indifferent in violation of § 504.
The parents brought an administrative action against HDE pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and § 504. The hearing officer (HO) found that HDE had failed to provide the children with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by IDEA and that the children’s IEPs were inadequate. The HO ordered HDE to remedy the violations. The parents subsequently brought suit in federal district court against HDE seeking damages for violations of § 504. The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that there was no private right of action to enforce a FAPE under § 504. It also concluded that the § 504 claim failed because the parents failed to "present any evidence that they were intentionally discriminated against solely by reason of their disability.”
On appeal, a different Ninth Circuit panel held "although there is a private right of action under Rehabilitation Act § 504, simply establishing a violation of the right to a FAPE under IDEA is not sufficient to prevail in a § 504 claim for damages." Rather, a plaintiff must show "that an organization that receives federal funds violated § 504 intentionally or with deliberate indifference." That panel remanded the case to district court. Based on this clarified standard, the parents amended their complaint to allege that HDE acted with deliberate indifference in violation of § 504. The district court granted HDE’s motion for summary judgment on ground had the parents had failed to raise an issue of genuine fact as to whether HDE was deliberately indifferent.
On appeal for the second time, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to it. It stated that whether HDE was liable for damages under § 504 depended on whether HDE failed to provide the children with a reasonable accommodation that they needed to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of a public education, and did so with deliberate indifference. The parents had raised a question of material fact regarding reasonable accommodation, the panel found, because: "(1) the girls’ disability made it impossible for them to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of a public education without autism-specific services; (2) Hawaii DOE was on notice that the girls needed those services, but failed to provide them; and (3) those services were available as a reasonable accommodation." The panel also determined that the parents’ allegations were sufficient to raise a question of genuine fact on the issue of deliberate indifference because the parents’ allegation showed that HDE was aware over a five year period, 1994-99, that the children needed autism-specific services in order to access the benefits of a public education and HDE failed to adequately investigate whether such accommodations were available. The panel rejected HDE’s argument that the parents could only prove HDE failed to provide meaningful access by by showing a violation of § 504′s implementing regulation 34 C.F.R. § 104.33, which requires public schools to design programs for students with disabilities to meet their “individual educational needs . . . as adequately as the needs of non[-disabled] persons are met.” While acknowledging the regulation identified a specific requirement for compliance, it found that the regulation did not "negate the broader rule that a federally funded entity violates the Rehabilitation Act § 504 if it denies a qualified disabled person the reasonable accommodation that the person needs in order to enjoy meaningful access to a program or service." It likewise rejected HDE arguments that the parents had not raised a question of genuine fact on the issue of deliberate indifference because the parents had relied on nothing more than HDE’s failure to provide a FAPE under IDEA and HDE was merely negligent, not deliberately indifferent, to the children’s federally protected rights. The panel, instead, found that the parents had alleged more than the IDEA violations and the difference of opinion between HDE and the parents over whether HDE’s actions constituted mere negligence or deliberate indifference highlighted that there was a question of genuine fact.
Mark H. v. Hamamoto, No. 09-15754 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2010)
[Editor's Note: Note that Hawaii is the only state with a single school district. The state department of education, therefore, functions as the local educational agency for the entire state. A summary of the previous Ninth Circuit opinion that clarified that a plaintiff could establish a § 504 violation by showing intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference is available at the link below.]
NSBA School Law pages on Mark H. v. Lemahieu
After much work by education advocates, including NSBA’s Advocacy team, Congress passed and the President signed the Education Jobs Fund bill on August 10, 2010, providing $10 billion to save education jobs. Secretary Duncan held conference calls with press and education representatives shortly after the bill’s passage to explain how the Department of Education would work with states to get the money to school districts in time for the start of the 2010-2011 school year. The law contains a provision aimed specifically at Texas. Responding to complaints that previous federal stimulus dollars have been used to replace state aid, U.S. Representative from Austin Lloyd Doggett included a provision in the bill that requires the Governor of Texas to make an assurance in his application for the federal money that it will not be used to supplant state aid to schools, but instead will be used to supplement current levels of state aid. In fact, all governors applying for this federal funding must assure the Department of Education (ED) that state aid will remain at the current percentage of state appropriations for one year (the "maintenance of effort, or "MOE" requirement). Texas, however, must make that assurance through 2013. Texas Governor Rick Perry, with the Attorney General, contend that the state constitution prevents him from making such an assurance because the governor cannot dictate state funding nor bind a future Legislature to a certain level of spending. The Texas Association of School Boards has noted the importance of the extra federal funding to Texas school boards. Texas’ share of the federal funds is $830 million, which is needed to to avoid increases in tax rates, to prevent laying off teachers, and to hire qualified teachers to replace substitutes. If the Governor does not apply for the funds by September 9, any claim to the funds is forfeited or, at best, significantly delayed.
At least one editorial board at a Texas newspaper sees wisdom in the modest proposal offered by Jacqueline Lain, director of governmental affairs for the Texas Association of School Boards. In talking to the paper about the dispute, Ms. Lain suggested that the governor could add a statement to the application indicating that he will work diligently with the Legislature to maintain the current percentage of state education funding over the next three years, rather than assuring a specific funding level. This, or similarly conditional language, would allow the governor to provide the required assurance within the constitutional constraints that he has cited.
For background on the federal Education Jobs Fund, TASB’s report and the editorial coverage, see the links below.
Texas Association of School Boards legislative report on dispute over federal funds
Statesman editorial urging TASB’s proposed solution to dispute
NSBA Legal Clips archive on Secretary Duncan’s conference call
In Athletics, Facilities, Property & School Business, Health & Nutrition, Student Rights & Discipline
Tagged as athletes, concussion, NFSHA, Virginia, VSBA
The Newport News Daily News reports that Virginia has enacted legislation on treating youth sports concussions that mirrors the recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). AAP recommends that children or adolescents who sustain a concussion always be evaluated by a physician and receive medical clearance before returning to play. Virginia’s new law, which will go into effect in July 2011, will require every school division to inform student athletes and their parents and guardians about the short-term and long-term effects of concussions; it also will require any student suspected of sustaining a concussion to leave the playing field and not return until evaluated and given written permission by a licensed health-care provider. The details of the bill’s implementation will be hammered out in meetings around the state this year.
Contrary to public perception, only about one in 10 people incurring a concussion actually loses consciousness. More typical symptoms, which can appear immediately or up to 72 hours after impact, include disorientation, memory problems, dizziness, headache and nausea. Subsequent problems can include depression and sleep issues. One of the greatest concerns is "second impact syndrome" when a second concussion occurs before the brain has recovered from the first one "regardless of how mild both injuries may seem," according to the National Federation of State High School Associations. The NFSHA has revised its language this year to advise that no athlete suspected of having a concussion should return to the same practice or contest, even if symptoms clear within 15 minutes. Further, it no longer recommends the "grading" of concussions, as symptoms often worsen some time after the head injury.
Source: Newport News Daily News, 8/30/10, By Prue Salasky
[Editor's Note: The Virginia School Boards Association, which provides model policies for school districts in the state, notes that the state Board of Education has established a work group including medical experts to work on this issue. To contact VSBA, go to the first link below. The AAP report on youth sports concussions is available at the second link below. The Chicago Tribune reports that the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) has adopted a new rule to protect student-athletes from potential serious long-term health risks that result from returning to action too soon after a concussion or other brain injury. The rule states that if an official, coach or trainer suspects a player of having a concussion, he or she can remove the player from the game. The player can return only if cleared by a proper medical professional. A summary of article is available at the third link below.]
AAP concussion report
Legal Clips archive on IHSA concussion rule
Tagged as bracelets, dress code, First Amendment, South Dakota
Baltic High School Principal Jim Aisenbrey has banned students from wearing cancer awareness bracelets that contain the caption "I love boobies," says a USA Today report in the Star Press. The bracelets have caused controversy in schools in states including California, Colorado, Idaho, Florida and Wisconsin. Some districts allow students to wear them inside-out, and others ban them. "When we had an assembly the first day of school, I basically told the students we are not insensitive to the cause," said Aisenbrey. "I think everybody in the gym, including myself, has had a family member or relative or friend who has dealt with the issue. I do think there are more proper ways to bring this plight to the attention of people, and I don’t think this is a proper way."
The bracelets, which sell for about $4 in stores, were created by Keep A Breast Foundation, a non-profit group that seeks to increase breast cancer awareness among young people. Proceeds from sales support the foundation’s programs, founder Shaney Jo Darden says. She says the bracelets are meant to spark discussions. In the Fresno, California area, students in the Clovis Unified School District (CUSD) were told not to wear the bracelets in class — or to turn them inside out so the message is not visible, according to CUSD spokeswoman Kelly Avants. She also noted that CUSD’s dress code outlaws jewelry with sexually suggestive language or images, she says.
Source: Star Press, 9/1/10, By USA Today
[Editor's Note: What constitutes "offensive" is often in the eye of the beholder, but school officials enforcing dress codes often must assume that anything that could be perceived as offensive is "offensive." It is no-win situation for the official, who is likely to be denounced either by the student whose apparel was rejected or by a person or group who finds the apparel inappropriate, in bad taste or offensive based on political or religious views. In January 2010, the Pennsylvania’s Patriot-News reported that the West Shore School Board (WSSB) was considering changes to four district policies, including two that were challenged in a lawsuit in the fall. The suit was brought by the parent of a middle school student who was told to turn an anti-abortion T-shirt inside out because school officials thought it might offend other students. The policy revisions are the quid pro quo for dropping the suit. A summary of the article is below.]
NSBA School Law pages on WSSB dress code revision
Page 143 of 163« First...102030«141142143144145»150160...Last »