Harvard Graduate School of Education
Schools and the Law (A-213)
Fall 2006
Wednesdays 1:00-4:00 p.m.
Gutman Hall, room 440
“Fear of serious injury can not alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Man feared
witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational
fears.”
Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. People of California (1927)
“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate…In our system, state operated schools may not be
enclaves of totalitarianism.”
Justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
“That [School Boards] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of
Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach
youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.”
Justice Jackson in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
“Our government is the potent, the omnipotent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people
by its example.”
Justice Brandeis in Olmsted v. United States (1928)
“The government is nowhere more a teacher than when it runs a public school.”
Justice Ginsberg in Board of Ed. v. Earls (2002)
Instructor:
David Schimmel
Office: Gutman 439
Phone (413) 545-1529
Fax (413) 545-1523
Office Hours: Wednesday 4:00 – 5:30 p.m. by appointment
Teaching Fellow:
Sameer Doshi
sdoshi@law.harvard.edu
TF office hours by appointment
1
This course is intended for students who are interested in the relationship between law, public policy
and current issues in education, in both public and independent K-12 schools. The course has several
purposes:
1. Developing sensitivity to the legal aspects of education and to conflicting views about legal
policies and practices.
2. Acquiring information about law and legal principles that apply to schools.
3. Examining the way courts resolve policy conflicts among students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and community groups.
4. Developing skills used in legal analysis, research, writing, and in the “practice of preventative
law.”
5. Increasing awareness of the costs and benefits of resolving educational controversies through the
legal process and through alternative approaches to conflict resolution.
6. Examining how schools teach about law and constitutional values through the formal and “hidden”
curriculum.
7. Helping educators become conscious, informed and effective law teachers.
A major focus of this course will be the examination and analysis of hypothetical and reported legal
cases. The primary teaching method will be a modified Socratic approach. Assigned cases will be
analyzed from the perspectives of law, education, and public policy.
Students are encouraged to subscribe to the National School Boards Association’s Legal Clips via
email. This service is free and provides participants with weekly updates on interesting legal issues.
Please visit http://spirit.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?join=legalclips or e-mail Andrew Paulson at
apaulson@nsba.org to subscribe.
REQUIREMENTS
All assignments are due in the Wednesday lectures, except the final project which is due in January.
1. Class Participation
Students are required to attend all classes, participate in discussions, and read the assigned material
prior to each class. (An understanding of legal principles is cumulative.) There will also be two
in-class self-assessment reviews.
2. Brief of Pickering v. Board of Education
September 27
Prepare a 1-page brief of the facts, issue, holding and rationale of Pickering v. Board of
Education, a case in the readings for September 27. The TFs will demonstrate how to brief a case
at our first class.
3. Introduction to Legal Research
First month of class
To maximize your understanding of the course content, and to facilitate the research of your final
project, we will arrange sessions with the Gutman reference librarians in intervals and learn how to
conduct legal research.
4. Mock Hearing
October 25
The class will be divided into groups and given a hypothetical fact pattern about a student
expulsion. You will be required to design and carry out an appropriate due process hearing. You
2
will be graded upon the appropriateness of the process afforded, and the identification and
exploration of the Constitutional issues raised in the fact pattern. Details will be distributed in
class.
5. Final Exercise
December 13
There will be an in-class exercise based on the text, readings, and class discussions. The final exercise
will be open-book.
Students may also choose not to take the final exercise, and instead submit two final projects – one
teacher survey/legal lesson plan and one position paper (see below).
6. Final Project
Due January 5
Students will have two options for the final project: you may choose to (1) administer a survey to
teachers about their legal literacy, analyze the results, and devise a lesson plan on legal concepts for
teachers, or (2) write a position paper on a legal debate/controversy in education and public policy.
Option A.
Teacher Survey and Legal Lesson Plan
This option is open to all members of the class, but is an expectation for students in the
School Leadership Program. After securing the agreement of a principal, you will be given a
brief survey on school law developed by Prof. Schimmel. Students should administer the
survey to teachers at the school in early October. The school at which you choose to administer
the survey can be anywhere in the U.S. For example, SLP students may choose to administer
the survey at the school at which they are assigned for their practicum; or, one could administer
the survey at an out-of-state school at which you have taught. The TFs will work with students
to develop on-line survey tools, where possible.
After the surveys are returned, there are three steps:
1.
Tabulation and Analysis of Survey Results
Due November 15
In 3-4 pages, briefly summarize the survey results from your school, and write a short
analysis of what the results tell you. For example, do the results suggest that teachers
want/need more legal knowledge about a specific aspect of education? What do the results
suggest about how teachers learn about education law, and the best way to convey that
knowledge? If you were developing a professional development session for teachers based on
the data in your survey results, on what aspect of education law would it concern? Students are
especially encouraged to develop lesson plan ideas related to the Constitutional context of
schools, and liability issues in K-12 education.
2.Consultation
Between November 29 and December 13
After the TFs have returned your tabulation/analysis with comments, form a small
group of two to four students who are also working on this final project and set a time outside
of class to brainstorm and exchange ideas about how you will develop a legal lesson plan for
3
teachers on the issue you have identified. Later, exchange, present and critique each others’
lesson. Name the classmates you will work with on this project by December 6.
3.
Legal Education Lesson Plan
Due January 5, 5:00pm
Using the course materials and legal research resources, develop a lesson plan for
teachers on a specific legal issue in education (i.e., the Constitutional context of schools,
liability issues in K-12 education, etc.) Structure a lesson plan that could be used in a
professional development session for teachers at a school, including exercises, visuals, and
background materials as you see fit. The length and content of the lesson plan should reflect
what you think would be reasonably necessary to deliver a thorough lesson on your issue in a
1-hour professional development session. The plan should include: a rationale, goals,
motivator, content, application, and assessment.
Option B.
Position Paper
The position paper should be written on a legal debate or legal controversy related to
education and public policy. Students should consult with the teaching fellows as early as
possible about their topics; the TF’s will also distribute a list of possible topics mid-semester.
The paper is intended to enable you to use legal research as an advocate for change and to
strengthen your analytic skills and critical reasoning abilities. These skills should help you
become more effective in understanding, interpreting, developing and improving
educational/legal policies. The final paper should be 10-12 pages in length. Students also have
the option of working in pairs to prepare an 18-20 page paper. There will be two steps to this
project:
1. Prospectus on Position Paper (3-4 pages)
Due November 15
(a) Rationale. Identify the policymaker(s) to whom you will address your proposal and
explain why the legal/educational controversy or topic is important. This may be an issue
where you feel change is needed or where you feel a proposed change would be detrimental.
(b) Summarize 4-6 conflicting cases or articles that would include the strongest legal
arguments supporting each side of the controversy and explain how they support each side.
(c) Bibliography. Include a preliminary bibliography of relevant legal and educational
journal articles or related research.
(d) Classmate Editor. Identify a classmate who will edit and give you feedback on the
first draft of your paper.
2.
Position Paper (10-12 pages)
Due January 5, 5:00pm
(a) Address your paper, including a one paragraph executive summary of your major
recommendations, to a policymaker who can influence the outcome of the controversy – e.g.,
the Secretary/Commissioner of Education (federal or state), a state or federal legislator or
legislative committee or a local or state school board.
4
(b)
Present and support your position. In addition to presenting your legal
arguments, include supporting educational, administrative, and policy perspectives based on
legal and educational research and journal articles.
(c)
Summarize the strongest legal and policy arguments against your position
and how you would respond to them.
(d)
Attach your Prospectus with comments.
COURSE GRADING
Letter grades; SAT/UNSAT option
Assignment Schedule
Weighting
1. Class Participation
2. September 27 Brief of Pickering v. Board of Education
3. October 25: Mock Hearing
4. November 15: Prospectus/Teacher Survey Analysis
5. December 13: In-Class Final Exercise
6. January 5: Final Project
10%
ungraded
15%
15%
15%
45%
For students who decide to submit two final projects rather than taking the final exercise, each final
project will count toward 30% of the final grade.
COURSE READINGS
Students are expected to complete ALL course readings and be prepared to discuss them in class. You
may also find it helpful to write case briefs of the cases in the syllabus. The teaching fellows will
demonstrate how to do this. Course readings include the text, course packet, and material that students
will retrieve online:
Text:
Teachers and the Law (Seventh Edition), Fischer, Schimmel, & Stellman (2007)
This book is now available at the COOP on Palmer Street.
Course Packet:
Other required materials are contained in the course packet, which students must purchase. The course
packet is available for purchase in the Gutman Conference Center. Readings from the course packet
are noted with a (CP) on the syllabus.
Retrieving Cases and News Articles Online:
In an effort to keep the cost of your course packet low, HGSE has established a policy of requiring
students to retrieve any materials that can be found online. For A-213, this means that students will
need to access the cases and news articles in the syllabus over the internet. All cases have been edited
5
and are posted on the course website, http://my.gse.harvard.edu/course/gse-a213. All news articles can
be accessed via direct links to Lexis/Nexis, also posted on the course website. All online documents
can also be accessed by clicking on the direct hyperlinks embedded in the electronic version of this
syllabus posted on the course website. A few articles from Education Week must be retrieved directly
from its website, http://www.edweek.org/ew/index.html; free registration at the website is required.
Prior to each class, please download and save/print the cases and articles for that week, and have
them available for class, either on paper or on your laptop.
Additional and ongoing information, as well as readings for the first two weeks of class, will be posted
on the course website.
Weekly Feedback and Course Evaluation: You will be asked to share problems, questions,
concerns or suggestions each week with me and/or the teaching fellows. In addition, there will be a
formal evaluation at the end of the semester.
SCHEDULE OF ASSIGNMENTS
WEEK 1
1. Sept. 20
Introduction to Education Law; The Scope and Limits of Student Freedom
of Expression and Association in Public Schools
Introduction to Education Law
Issues: How is the U.S. legal system organized? How can non-lawyers negotiate
the legal system?
Text: Chapter 1
Readings:
• “The United States of America: Constitutional Democracy”
handout (CP)
• “Legal Framework for Public Education” (skim) (CP)
• David Schimmel, “Legal Literacy,” MCSS Newsletter, 1977. (CP)
Mini-Lesson on Briefing Cases and Searching for Cases/Articles Online
The Scope and Limits of Student Freedom of Expression and Association in
Public Schools
Student Freedom of Speech
Issues: Hateful, Provocative and Offensive Speech: What can and can’t be
banned? Library Censorship: Is there a student right to know?
Text: Chapter 9 (pp. 144-155)
Readings:
• Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
• Pyle v. South Hadley, 861 F. Supp. 157 (D.Mass. 1994).
6
• Linda Greenhouse, “High Court Limits Banning of Books,” The
New York Times, June 26, 1982. (re Island Trees case)
• Right of Students to Freedom of Expression – Annotated Laws of
Massachusetts, Chapter 71, § 82.
Student Freedom of the Press
Issues: How free are students to distribute unpopular or controversial views in
school-sponsored and underground publications?
Text: Chapter 9 (pp. 155-164)
Readings:
• Stuart Taylor, Jr. “Court, 5-3, Widens Power of Schools to Act as
Censors,” The New York Times, January 14, 1988 (re Hazelwood case)
Student Freedom of Association
Issue: Should students be free to organize demonstrations, religious or gay
student organizations, fraternities, or radical political groups in school?
Text: Chapter 11 (206-214)
Student Dress and Grooming
Issue: Can public schools restrict what students wear? Can independent
schools make students cut their hair?
Readings:
• Sacha Pfeiffer and Mac Daniel, “Brockton Boy Can Dress as Girl,”
Boston Globe, Oct. 13, 2000.
WEEK 2
2. Sept. 27
Teacher Freedom of Speech, Academic Freedom, Freedom
of Association, and the Teacher’s Personal Life
Teacher Freedom of Speech
Issues: Outside the classroom, are teachers free to publicly criticize school
policy, colleagues, and administrators? Do they have the right to
criticize supervisors directly?
Text: Chapter 9 (pp. 123-134)
Readings:
• Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)
Academic Freedom
Issues: What is academic freedom? Does it exist in public schools? Are
teachers free to use methods and materials that are unpopular in the
community and disapproved of by the administration?
Text: Chapter 9 (pp. 134-144)
Readings:
• James v. Board of Ed 461 F.2d. 566 (2d.Cir. 1972)
7
• Matthew Pinzur, “Banned books ordered back on shelves,” Miami
Herald, July 25, 2006. Available at
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15114360.htm. Also
see: “Board’s attorney warned of trouble with book ban,” Miami
Herald, June 23, 2006, available at
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14882932.htm ;
“ACLU opposes Cuban book ban,” Miami Herald, June 22,
2006, available at
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14873135.htm
• Also see legal summary of the July 24, 2006 “Order Granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction” opinion (ACLU of Miami
v. Miami-Dade County School Board, federal district court, Southern
District of Florida) at
http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=43
8&DID=38972
Freedom of Association
Issues: May teachers be prohibited from openly participating in radical, racist,
sexist, or subversive organizations?
Text: Chapter 11 (210-222)
Readings:
• Raab, Selwyn, “Dismissal Urged for Teacher With Ties to Child-Sex
Group,” New York Times, Sept. 22, 1993.
Academic Freedom at Independent Schools
Issues: Can the state restrict a private schools’ ability to require certain
textbooks? Can the state restrict athletic recruiting practices at private schools?
Readings:
• Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico v. Vargas, 289
F.Supp.2d. 1 (D.P.R. 2003).
WEEK 3
3. Oct. 4
Freedom of Religion and Conscience (Moot Court)
Issues: Does voluntary prayer, silent meditation, or graduation prayer violate the
First Amendment? Can public school teachers and students be required
to salute the flag and lead the Pledge of Allegiance? Is there a difference
for independent schools? What about equal time for creationism? Can
public schools teach about religion?
Text: Chapter 10
Readings:
• Equal Access Act (Public Law 98-377) 1984.
8
• David Schimmel, “From Consensus to Confusion: Should the
Wall of Separation be Demolished or Rebuilt?” Insights on Law
and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2, Winter, 2001. (CP)
• Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)
• Linda Greenhouse, “The Supreme Court: School Tuition; Supreme
Court, 5-4, Upholds Voucher System that Pays Religious Schools’
Tuition,” The New York Times, June 28, 2002 (re Zelman case)
• The New York Times, “The Supreme Court; Excerpts From the
Decision Sanctioning Vouchers for Private Schools,” June 28, 2002.
• The New York Times, “Excerpts From Arguments on the Meaning of
'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, March 25, 2004. (re
Newdow case)
• Linda Greenhouse, “8 Justices Block Effort to Excise Phrase in
Pledge,” The New York Times, June 15, 2004 (re Newdow case)
• Circle School v. Pappert, 381 F.3d 172 (3rd Cir., 2004)
• U.S. Department of Education, “Guidance on Constitutionally
Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools”
(skim) (CP)
• Article on intelligent design case to be posted on course website.
WEEK 4
4. Oct. 11
Due Process, Search and Seizure, and Collaborative Rule Making
Due Process
Issues: Does the Bill of Rights apply to public and private schools? If so, why,
when, and how? What characterizes the legal relationship between
schools and students: In loco parentis, administrative discretion,
constitutional constraint, judicial surveillance, legislative interference
and/or political pressures?
When are students or teachers entitled to procedural due process? What
process is due? Can students with disabilities be suspended? Should
students have a right to academic due process? Do school codes of
conduct promote self-discipline and citizenship skills?
Text: Chapter 12 (pp. 229-253)
Readings:
• Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
• Tobin McAndrews, “Zero Tolerance Policies,” ERIC Digest No. 146,
March 2001. (CP)
• Jenkins, J, & Dayton, J. “Students, Weapons, and Due Process: An
Analysis of Zero Tolerance Policies in Public Schools” 171
Education Law Reporter 13 (2003). (CP)
9
• David Doty, “By the Book: Fuller and the Essential Elements of
Student Due Process in K-12 Expulsion Hearings,” 151 Education
Law Reporter 353 (2001). (CP)
• David Schimmel, “Classroom Management, Discpline and the
Law: Clarifying Confusions about Students’ Rights and
Teachers’ Authority (2005). (CP)
Search and Seizure
Issues:
When can school officials search student lockers, cars, possessions,
and persons? When should canine searches be permitted?
Text: Chapter 12 (pp.253-269)
Readings:
• New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
• Board of Education of Independent School District 92 of
Pottawotomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
• John Murry, “Your School District is Interested in Drug Testing
Student Athletes – Are You Prepared to Answer the Legal Concerns
of Your Constituents?” Presentation at the Annual Conference of the
Education Law Association. [skim] (CP)
Collaborative Rule-Making
• David Schimmel, “Collaborative Rule-Making and Citizenship
Education: An Antidote to the Undemocratic Hidden Curriculum,”
American Secondary Education, Summer 2003. (CP)
WEEK 5
5. Oct. 18
Financial Liability for Student Injuries, Educational Malpractice,
Constitutional Torts, and Defamation; FERPA and Student Records
Issues: When are schools liable for student injuries? When should schools be
held responsible for educational malpractice? When can officials be held
personally liable for violating student rights?
Text: Chapters 5 and 6
Readings:
• David Schimmel,“When a Child is Injured,” American Teacher,
Vol. 57, No. 3, Nov. 1972. (CP)
• Golden v. Anders, 324 F.3d 650 (8th Cir. 2003)
• David Frisby and Joseph C. Beckham, “Developing School Policies on
the Application of Reasonable Force,” 122 Education Law Reporter,
27 (1998) pp. 27-32. (CP)
• Claims Against the Commonwealth – Mass. Gen. Law Ch 258 §2.
• Davis, Wendy, “Teachers Fighting Abusive Students,” Boston Globe,
Sept. 15, 2002.
10
• Kathleen Burge, “Newton Case Tests Schools on Liability,” Boston
Globe, Feb. 24, 2002.
• Darcia Bowman, “Report Notes Impact of Student Behavior,”
Education Week, May 19, 2004.
• Gail Sorenson,“Randi W.: When Half the Truth in a Letter of
Recommendation Amounts to a Lie,” 119 Education Law
Reporter, 331 (1997). pp. 331-334. (CP)
FERPA, Student Records, and Access to Student Information
Issues: What are the features of the Buckley Amendment (FERPA)? Does it
allow schools to destroy student records? Does it make teachers liable
for negative comments? Does it prohibit teachers from giving
recommendations without a student’s permission? What are the limits
on military recruiters’ access to student information?
Text: Chapter 17
Readings:
• Family Educational Rights And Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g
• “Armed Forces Recruiter Access to Students and Student Recruiting
Information,” ESEA, Section 9528 (CP)
WEEK 6
6. Oct. 25
Mock Hearings
WEEK 7
7. Nov. 1
Special Education; Child Abuse and Neglect
In-Class Self-Assessment
Special Education
Issues: Should special education laws be reformed? Should all students be
entitled to an individualized education plan? Should all parents have the
right to participate in formulating such a plan? What obligations do
independent schools have to provide special education services?
Text: Chapter 16 (pp. 357-379)
Readings:
• Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
• Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66
(1999)
11
• “A Parent’s Guide to Special Education,” The Federation for Children
with Special Needs and the Massachusetts Department of Education.
(CP)
• Hehir and Gamm, “Special Education: From Legalism to
Collaboration.” (CP)
Child Abuse and Neglect
Issues: What constitutes “abuse” and “neglect”? When are educators required to
report suspected cases?
Text: Chapter 7
Readings:
• Cheryl Skinner, “Gary Gates Lawsuit ends with settlement,” Fort Bend
/ Southwest Star, August 16, 2006. [Text of article available on
course website.]
WEEK 8
8. Nov. 8
State Fiscal Equity Cases; English Language Learners and
Undocumented Immigrants
Issues: Should all students have a constitutional right to an equal education?
Should this require an equal or equitable allocation of funds to all
schools? For all students?
State Fiscal Equity Cases
Readings:
• San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
• Margaret E. Goertz, “Funding General and Special Education
in the 21st Century,” Journal of Special Education Leadership,
May 1999, pp. 15-20. (CP)
• Paul A. Minorini and Stephen D. Sugarman, “School Finance
Litigation in the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolution,
Impact, and Future” (skim) (CP)
• Greg Winter, “New York Schools Ruling: Overview; State
Underfinancing Damages City Schools, New York Court
Finds,” The New York Times, June 27, 2003. (re Campaign for
Fiscal Equity case)
• The New York Times, “New York Schools Ruling; Excerpts
From Court Ruling On Financing of City Schools, June 27, 2003.
English Language Learners
Issues: What is the best approach for educating English Language Learners?
Should the district, state or federal government decide?
Text: Chapter 16 (pp. 379-383)
Readings:
12
• Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)
• Seth Stern, “Conversion to Immersion,” Christian Science
Monitor, November 5, 2002.
• Valeria G. v. Wilson, 12 F.Supp.2d 1007 (1998)
• Peter Schrag, “Back to the Language Wars: Déjà Vu All Over Again,”
Sacramento Bee, March 1, 2006
• Massachusetts Ballot Question 2 (2003) (CP)
Undocumented Immigrants
• Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
• Martha Stoddard, “Immigration Tuition Law Could Have Little Effect.
What’s Next?” Omaha World-Herald, June 12, 2006
WEEK 9
9. Nov. 15
Racial and Ethnic Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Racially Hostile
Environments
Prospectus Due
Guest Lawyers’ Panel (in class)
Racial and Ethnic Discrimination, Affirmative Action
Issues: Are voluntary affirmative action goals or quotas to achieve racial balance
for teachers or students constitutional? If ethnic minorities want to go to
a school in which their group is in the majority, should they have the
right to do so? Should schools seek equal educational outcomes?
Should selective schools be able to give admissions preferences based on
minority status or disadvantage?
Text: Chapter 14
Readings:
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) [often
called Brown II]
• Wessman v. Gittens 160 F.3d 790 (1998).
• Linda Greenhouse, “The Supreme Court: Affirmative Action;
Justices Back Affirmative Action by 5 to 4, but Wider Vote
Bans a Racial Point System,” The New York Times, June
24, 2003 (re Grutter and Gratz cases)
• University of Mass., Admissions Procedures, Fall 2000. (CP)
• Shelley Murphy, “High Court Won’t Hear Lynn Plan for Schools,”
The Boston Globe, Dec. 6, 2005.
• David Savage, “Bush Administration Opposes Integration Plans,” Los
Angeles Times, August 25, 2006, available at
13
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-nascotus25aug25,1,1067156.story?coll=la-news-learning
• United States Government amicus curiae brief, Meredith v. Jefferson
County (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) [Read at least the argument
summary on pages 7-8]
Racially Hostile Environment
• Mike Wise, “The Squabbling Illini: Rallying Cries Lead to Rift,”
The New York Times, December 16, 2003.
WEEK 10
10. Nov. 22
NO CLASS – THANKSGIVING WEEK
WEEK 11
11. Nov. 29
Sexual Discrimination in Education, Harassment and Sexual Orientation
Sexual Discrimination
Issues: Should women have a right to try out for men’s teams? For contact
sports? Should sex role stereotypes in the curriculum be illegal? What
constitutes sexual harassment? When, if ever, should schools be held
liable for student-to-student harassment? What about separate schools
for men and women?
Text: Chapter 15
Readings:
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
• Summary, Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic
Association, 178 F.Supp.2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001) (CP); Also see
Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic
Association (6th.Cir., Aug.16, 2006) [read sections C and D on pages
12-17]
• Chipman v. Grant County School District, 20 F.Supp.2d 975 (1998)
• U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, “34 CFR Part
106: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Proposed
Rules” (March 9, 2004) (CP)
Harassment
14
• David Schimmel, “When Schools are Liable for Peer Sexual
Harassment: An Analysis of Davis v. Monroe” 141 Education Law
Reporter 437 (2000) pp. 437-52 (CP)
Sexual Orientation
• Schroeder v. Hamilton School District, 282 F.3d 946 (2002)
The Teacher’s Personal Life
Issues: Are teachers role models? If so, should public schools have
the right to punish teachers’ perceived immorality and regulate their outof-school behavior that conflicts with the curriculum?
Text: Chapter 13
Readings:
• “States Which Prohibit Sexual Orientation Employment
Discrimination, www.lambdalegal.org, © 1997-2005 Lambda
Legal Defense & Education Fund.
WEEK 12
12. Dec. 6
High-Stakes Testing and the No Child Left Behind Act;
School Vouchers, Charter Schools and Homeschooling
Review Self-Assessment
Readings:
High-Stakes Testing
• Student No. 9 v. Board of Education, 802 N.E. 2d 105 (Mass. 2004)
• O’Connell v. Valenzuela (Cal. Court of Appeal, Aug. 11, 2006) [skim
this opinion]
The No Child Left Behind Act
Issue: What are the tradeoffs of the No Child Left Behind Act?
Readings:
• “ESEA Myths versus Realities: Answers to common questions about
the No Child Left Behind Act,” The Education Trust, 2002. (CP)
• Michael Dobbs, “NEA, States Challenge 'No Child' Program; Bush's
Premier Education Measure Taken to Court,” The Washington Post,
April 21, 2005.
• Avi Salzman, “N.A.A.C.P. is Bush Alley in School Suit Versus
State,” The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2006.
School Vouchers, Charter Schools and Homeschooling
Issues: Should all states use tax dollars to support vouchers for parental choice?
Are charter schools public or private or both? Can they be operated by
15
private, religious, or for-profit corporations? If so, do all constitutional
rights apply to students and teachers?
Readings:
School Vouchers
• Review New York Times case excerpts from Zelman v. SimmonsHarris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) [See week 3 NYT article: “The
Supreme Court; Excerpts From the Decision Sanctioning Vouchers
for Private Schools,” June 28, 2002]
• Executive Summary, “School Choice: Doing it the Right Way Makes a
Difference,” National Working Commission on Choice in K-12
Education (2003) (CP)
• “Researcher Insists NYC Vouchers Benefit Black Students,”
Education Week, June 18, 2003.
Charter Schools
• Center for Education Reform, State Scorecard on Charter School Laws
(CP)
• Laura Loh, “City Schools to Challenge State Decision on Charters,”
The Baltimore Sun, May 11, 2005.
Homeschooling
Issue: Should parents have the right to educate their children at home?
Text: Chapter 18 (pp. 405-413)
Reading:
• William Bradley Colwell and Brian David Schwartz, “Legal Aspects
of Home Schooling,” Presented at the Annual Conference of
Education Law Assn., Nov. 1999. (CP)
• James Dao, “Schooled at Home, They Want to Play in School,” The
New York Times, June 22, 2005.
WEEK 13
13. Dec. 13
In-Class Final Exercise
Course Evaluation
16