SALISBURY UNIVERSITY

Seidel School of Education and Professional Studies

EDUC 619 School Law & Public Education

Summer 2012

Instructor: Dr. Douglas DeWitt

Phone: 410-543-6286

Office Hours: TETC 379N By appointment

Email Address dmdewitt@salisbury.edu

Textbook: Alexander, K. & Alexander M.D. (2009), American Public School

Law, (Eighth Ed.), St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Course Content:

In this course you will read and consider important legal concepts and cases affecting education. The main

purpose is to learn about the framework of law that defines the rights and responsibilities of students, educators,

and parents. It will improve your ability to engage in and utilize legal reasoning in your role as an educator.

The course uses textbook material, case analysis of a variety of cases, journal articles and current legal

commentary to familiarize students with contemporary legal issues. The case study approach to education law

will be followed. Topics include: constitutional issues, tort law, contracts, school safety, instructional

programs, religious issues, student and teacher rights, due process, desegregation, rights of the handicapped and

school finance.

Course Outcomes:

1. Explain the structure and sources of American school law specifically, constitutions statutes and case law.

2. Describe fundamental legal principles and concepts in school law.

3. Identify the basic legal terminology used in the American legal system as it pertains to school law.

4. Demonstrate analytical reasoning through oral and written presentations on school related legal issues.

5. Identify areas of potential litigation with risk management strategies.

6. Explain the relationship of school law, Board of Education policies and school practices.

Internet Resources: In addition to the text for this course, the Internet will be a source of information for

School Law or Education Law. The following web-sites are starting points:

Lawyers Network

o http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com

U.S. Department of Education

o http://www.ed.gov/

U.S. Department of Education Disabilities Education Act

o http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA/the_law.html

School Safety, Laws and Legislation

o http://www.usinfo.state.gov/usa/schools/homepage.htm#law

6th

Circuit, 1995-Present

o http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit

Cornell Law School

o http://www.law.cornell.edu/

Council of School Attorneys

o http://www.nsba.org/cosa/

Law Guru: Search Engines and Tools

o http://www.lawguru.com/search/lawsearch.html

Course Requirements:

1. Briefs: Prepare briefs of the 34 cases listed below following guidelines listed in the

handout. 10 points each (340 points)

2. Reflective Journal: Each candidate will select five topic areas for analysis. The analysis

should include: a summary of the issues involved, a summary of the cases dealing with

the topic, and the implications of the topic for school administrators. Each topical

analysis should be 1½ to 2 pages. Reflective Journal = 25 pts. each (125 points)

3. Interview an administrator in your county and discuss the important legal issues which

they address in their job. Submit a 2-5 page paper reflecting on the discussion. 35 points

GRADING SCALE:

The following percentage scale will be used to calculate your grade:

100-90 =A

89-86 =B+

85-80 =B

79-76 =C+

75-70 =C

69-60 =D

59-Below = F

EXPECTATIONS/GUIDELINES:

Academic Integrity: Students are expected to maintain high standards of academic integrity. Students are

expected to submit their own work on assigned projects. Plagiarism on papers, discussions, or multimedia

projects (both giving and/or taking assistance), or engaging in other acts generally considered unethical, will

result in an F for that project and referral to the appropriate University officials.

Collection of Student Work: As is typical in professional programs, copies of some or all candidate

assignments will be kept for departmental purposes. These may include faculty and course assessments,

departmental review, and/or program accreditation. Candidates will not necessarily be informed of these uses. If

there is an assignment that a candidate does not want kept for this purpose, the candidate should notify the

instructor.

Special Needs: If you have special learning needs that you would like to make me aware of, please feel free to

make an appointment to discuss your learning needs.

Writing Across the Curriculum: Among the critical skills of the effective administrator is communication in

written form. Such communication must be convincing, clear, correct, and appropriate to a variety of audiences.

To demonstrate this skill, each student is required to meet high standards of clarity and correctness in all written

work submitted in this course. The evaluation of all written assignments, unless specifically designated as

informal writing, will take into account content, organization, style, grammar, usage, spelling and punctuation.

All references should be noted using APA format. Assistance for written projects may be obtained at the

University Writing Center.

SAMPLE BRIEF

Citation: Simms v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Multnomah Co., 508 P.2d 236 (Ore. 1973)

Topic: Assault and Battery

Relief Sought: Students brought action to recover damages against school district and one of its teachers for

assault and battery

Issues: (1) Did teacher wantonly shove student into door? (2) May teacher use reasonable force to move a

disruptive child from the classroom? (3) Did the trial Judge err in instructions to the jury?

Facts: Richard Simms, 14, brought action for assault and battery against district and a teacher, Martin Weitz.

As Weitz removed Simms from class, Simms arm struck the glass in the door causing the glass to break and

injured Simms arm. Simms was enrolled in a “model” school for the disadvantaged, and had a poor record.

Finding of the Trial Court: District Court found for the school district and the teacher.

Finding of the First Appellate Court: Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.

Reasoning of Court of Last Resort: Teachers may use reasonable force to remove a child from the classroom

if he is a disruptive element therein. The district’s regulation on corporal punishment read, in part: “Except in

the event of forcible and physical resistance to the teacher’s authority, corporal punishment shall be

administered only after the teacher has procured in advance the approval of the principal.” The issue of whether

or not the student offered “forcible and physical resistance to the teacher’s authority” was for the jury to decide.

The judge told the jury that it was to decide whether the teacher used reasonable force within the meaning of the

regulation. A teacher stands in loco parentis to the child, and shares the parents’ right to obtain obedience to

reasonable demands by force. In Ware v. Estes, 328 F. Supp. 657 (TX 1971), affirmed, 458 F.2d 1360 (1972)

the federal courts held that corporal punishment is not “cruel and inhuman treatment” under the Eighth

Amendment. We hold the child has no constitutional grounds to object to corporal punishment so long as it is

reasonable, properly administered and so as not to cause harm, and is legally authorized. Nor do we consider as

inadmissible the teacher’s written report prepared on the day of the act for his principal on grounds that it is

self-serving. The teacher was subject to cross-examination regarding all aspects of the report, including its

authenticity and reliability and accuracy. Clearly the court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

ASSIGNED BRIEFS

Chapter 5: Lemon v. Kurtzman

Agostini v. Felton

Wallace v. Jaffree

Lee v. Weisman

Board of Education of the Westside

Community Schools v. Mergens

Chapter 6: Plyler v. Doe

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Swanson v. Guthrie Independent

School District I-L

Chapter 7: Board of Education, Island Trees

Union Free School District No. 26 v.

Pico

Debra P. v. Turlington

Lau v. Nichols

Chapter 8: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent

County School District

Hazelwood School District v.

Kuhlmeier

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Chapter 9: Goss v. Lopez Franklin v. Gwinnett County

Public Schools

Davis v. Monroe County

Board of Education

Chapter 10: Florence County School District Four v.

Carter

Cedar Rapids Community School

District v. Garret F.

Honig v. Doe

Chapter 11: Brown v. Tesack

Johnson v. School District of Millard

Hammond v. Board of Education

Of Carroll County

Wegenblast v. Odessa School District

No 105-157-166J

Chapter 12: Milkovich v. Lorrain Journal Co.

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.

Lipscomb

Johnson v. Robbinsdale Independent

School District No. 281

Chapter 15: Pickering v. Board of Education

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated

School District

Cooper v. Eugene School District No.4J

Chapter 19:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

Griffin v. County School Board of

Prince Edward County

Freeman v. Pitts

Green v. County School Board

Of New Kent County