OCR Memorandum:
Internal guidance from the Office Of Civil Rights will likely reduce the scope of investigations. For example, a complaint regarding a singular incident will be less likely to result in requests for data and documentation unrelated to the incident. The memo can be found below.
Construction:
In Penzel v Jackson the court found that schools can be found liable for providing inaccurate specifications to contractors and subcontractors. Districts are advised to have all contracts with architects and bidding documents reviewed by legal counsel to reduce liability. Implied warranties should be disavowed.
While legislation was introduced to eliminate prevailing wage in Missouri, it did not pass. Prevailing wage is still law and should be included in all requests for bids.
Student Searches:
In State v Williams the court tightened qualification for allowable searches. It seems administrators have a higher bar to clear for demonstrating justifiable suspicion.
MHRA:
The Missouri Human Rights Act has been modified through legislative action which takes effect August 28. The causation standard for discrimination claims has been changed from "contributing factor" to "motivating factor." Additionally, individual liability for administrators has been eliminated.
Student Power of Attorney:
SB 128 expands the ability to transfer POA for students; however, it does nothing to change residency requirements. A parent can not grant POA to someone living in a neighboring district as a means for enrolling in the district. Also, granting POA does not eliminate parental rights. SB 128 requires annual renewal.
Violent Threats and Social Media:
In Ross v City of Jackson the court defined true threats on social media. It seems administrators have more leeway to determine threats. Free speech claims will offer less protection for individuals posting comments that are perceived as threatening. Administrators are encouraged to document and capture screen shots.
Random Drug Testing:
In Kittle-Aikeley v Strong, the court ruled drug testing in a college trade program was constitutional only because a safety concern could be demonstrated. Schools must be able to articulate the need for random testing in policy. The bar for requiring random testing seems to be rising.
Transgender Students:
On July 18, 2017 the Missouri Court of Appeals determined that a transgender student did not make a viable claim of sexual discrimination in RMA v Blue Springs Schools. Several other cases are working their way through federal courts. Districts are advised to clearly document adherence to OCR complaint processes. Adopting specific policies may not be advisable. Administrators should strive work with transgender students and families on a case by case basis.
Retirees:
SB 62 makes it more difficult to use retired teachers in 550 positions and as substitutes. Districts using contracted services for substitutes should contractually require contractors to track and report hours worked.
Posts
I'm so glad to hear the bar is being raised with regard to drug testing. I have opposed drug testing students in Norborne from the very beginning. I was very vocal in the informational meeting held before implementation. (Hector and I were two of the five parents who even bothered to show up at that meeting.) What's the point? Will the school district get help for students who test positive? Will the district provided drug specific counseling for the student? No! They'll suspend the kid, in all liklihood putting them at home alone, unsupervised for seven more hours a day. One student, a couple of years ago simply quit school rather than dealing with the hassle from the school district after testing positive. Brilliant. Now we had one less kid enrolled, filling a desk at Norborne. Bringing in drug dogs to sniff lockers? Great. The school has a right to safeguard and search their property. But to ask a 14 year old honor student with perfect attendence and no history of unusual behavior to pee in a cup for a stranger when entering school on a Monday morning is ridiculous to me. And by the way, the problem in our district is not drugs as much as it is alcohol. Maybe a simple breathalizer test for cheerleaders, football players, water boys,etc before the big game on Friday night would be more cost effective and revelatory...or before the big basketball game, etc. You're trying to provide a solution to a non-problem. The bottom line is, what is the point? Suspicionless drug testing is punative. Period. It's not helpful. During the discussion phase before implementaion, school administrators said it was a safety issue. Baloney. Let's focus on exceptional teaching and providing exciting educational opportunities for our students!
ReplyDelete