Uncategorized

Internet Violence: The Latest Frontier in Bullying

The rapid rate in the development of technology has changed the way we operate in our day-to-day lives. It has also opened new doors to methods for children to bully their fellow classmates. One “new form” of bullying that has been growing in frequency and has made appearances in the news is internet violence. Although the Connecticut legislature has not specifically defined internet violence, generally, internet violence includes cyber-harassment and cyber-bullying among other internet-related misconduct, such as spamming and hacking.

Connecticut Laws Protecting Students from Internet Violence

Connecticut has enacted laws addressing harassment and cyber-bullying. Under Connecticut law, it is a crime (called second-degree harassment) to harass or threaten anyone via a computer network. Any person who: a) communicates with another person using a “computer network” (or the U.S. mail or any other form of written communication); b) with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the other person and c) in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm. Second-degree harassment is a class C misdemeanor, which may result in a sentence of up to three months in prison, a fine of up to $500, or both.

What qualifies as “cyber bullying”?

Meanwhile, cyberbullying is defined under Connecticut law as “any act of bullying through the use of the Internet, interactive and digital technologies, cellular mobile telephone or other mobile electronic devices or any electronic communications.” Under the definition, the use of email, text messages, live web streams by a student or group of students to ridicule or humiliate another student would be considered cyber-bullying.

Connecticut Anti-Bullying Law

Connecticut passed a general anti-bullying law in 2011, which, as amended, has expanded school staff training, addressed cyber-bullying, devised statewide assessments, and delineated further responsibilities for schools. The Connecticut General Assembly has outlined specific criteria and listed a number of actions that would qualify as bullying, including cyber-bullying. The law redefined bullying as “the repeated use of a written, oral or electronic communication or physical act by one or more students directed at another student within the same school district which:

  1. physically or emotionally harms the student or damages that student’s property;
  2. places such student in reasonable fear of harm to himself or herself, or of damage to his or her property;
  3. creates a hostile school environment for that student;
  4. infringes on that student’s rights at school; or
  5. substantially disrupts the educational process or the orderly operation of the school.”
The Role of the School Administration

Schools are legally obligated to get involved in bullying cases, including those of internet violence, under Connecticut law. In Connecticut, as part of a required safe school climate plan, the local or regional board of education must have a process in place for students to anonymously report to school employees acts of cyber-bullying. Under the statute, “school employees” include a teacher, substitute teacher, school administrator, school superintendent, guidance counselor, psychologist, social worker, nurse, physician, paraprofessional, or anyone who has regular contact with students through the performance of his or her duties. The board must notify parents annually about the process by which students can make such reports.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

If you are concerned that your child is the victim of internet violence or in-school bullying, contact the experienced education law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut.

Student Discipline in Higher Education

Student Discipline on College Campuses 

Over the past few years, college students and graduate students have faced increasingly complex disciplinary rules and codes of student conduct. This is partly because campus-related disciplinary issues (in particular those related to hazing, harassment, and bullying) now frequently earn a significant amount of media and community interest. Especially because of the increasing scrutiny, colleges and universities must balance demands for punishment and accountability against students’ equally important rights to fairness and transparency with respect to the process and standards by which student discipline is meted out.

In Connecticut and elsewhere, the most significant factor in determining the existence and scope of students’ procedural and substantive rights is whether the school at issue is a public or private university.

Student Protections in Public vs. Private School

It is settled law that institutions of higher education that are considered “public” schools must afford constitutional protections to students accused of disciplinary violations, since they are considered “state actors” and the students’ educational progress is considered a protected liberty and property interest that triggers constitutional due process protections.

Separately, students at public schools are protected by internal school rules and guidelines, such that a school’s violation of its internal disciplinary process may properly be the subject of a breach of contract claim. (While constitutional due process and internal requirements may overlap, due process may impose requirements that go beyond school policy.)

By contrast, “private” colleges and universities are generally not subject to constitutional due process requirements. This means that, as a rule, students at these institutions are protected by internal school rules and guidelines, but not by constitutional due process. There are nuances, of course, but this important distinction comes as a surprise to many private school students and may significantly narrow the options that are available to private school students.

Of course, the process protections and remedies available to a private school student depend on what the particular private school’s internal documents provide.

Due Process Requirements and Elements

The scope, meaning, and requirements of “due process” can be difficult to determine, as well. As one Connecticut court put it: “the procedures employed in disciplinary matters must be tested to the extent that they comport with the requirements of fundamental fairness. The traditional common law adversarial method need not be followed as long as the individual has had an opportunity to answer, explain and defend.”

It is important to note that due process in the context of educational discipline is not co-extensive with due process in the criminal context. In general, there is no per se right to have counsel present in this context, nor is there a per se right to an appeal of an adverse decision. In fact, courts considering due process requirements in this context have afforded a significant amount of latitude to schools in conducting disciplinary matters. Very generally, the basic elements of due process have been held to include:

(1) Notice of the nature of the charges. (This is meant to provide an accused party with sufficient details and clarity to allow him or her to respond to the charges and prepare a defense.)

(2) An opportunity to challenge witnesses and produce witnesses on the accused student’s behalf.

(3) An impartial hearing and decision-maker. (Depending on the circumstances, this may include a requirement that the school make factual determinations supporting its disciplinary decision.)

Understanding Student’s Rights when Facing Disciplinary Action

Regardless of a student’s particular circumstances, it is important for any student faced with disciplinary issues to understand what procedural and substantive rights are available.

The most advantageous time to consider these issues is before—not after—disciplinary processes takes place. Attacking a bad or unfair result or issues about process and procedure after the fact may be an option, but the practical difficulties are significant, and putting any accused student back on track for graduation based upon a challenge to an unfavorable result can be much more challenging.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

The attorneys at Maya Murphy stand ready to assist you in considering disciplinary issues in higher education. No two situations are the same; there are always differentiating facts and circumstances. Thus, you should consult with an experienced practitioner to determine where you stand. For further information, call us today at (203) 221-3100.

Conducting an Independent Evaluation

Independent Educational Evaluation 

You have the right to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) conducted by a qualified (licensed and/or certified) examiner who is not employed by your school district. When the school district agrees to pay for the IEE, the criteria under which the IEE is obtained, including the location and the qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the school district would use when it does its own evaluation.

What if I disagree with an evaluation conducted by the school district?

If you disagree with an evaluation conducted by the school district, you have a right to an independent educational evaluation at the school’s expense, unless the school district can prove its evaluation is appropriate or the IEE does not meet the school district’s criteria. If the school believes its evaluation is appropriate, it must initiate a due process hearing or pay for the IEE. If the school district initiates a due process hearing, a hearing officer will decide whether the school district’s evaluation is appropriate. If the hearing officer decides in favor of the school district, you may still obtain an independent evaluation, but you will have to pay the costs associated with the independent evaluation.

Do I need to inform the school district if I intend to seek an independent educational evaluation?

Although it is often helpful to consult with the school district when seeking an independent educational evaluation, you are not required to inform the school district in advance. Your decision to consult or not to consult with the school district will have no bearing on your right to ask that the independent educational evaluation be at no cost to you but instead paid by the school district.

If I inform the school district that I am obtaining an IEE what is the school district required to do?

The school district must, without delay; either agree to pay for the IEE or initiate due process procedures to defend the appropriateness of its evaluation.

Is the school required to accept the results of an independent education evaluation?

The school district must consider the results of any independent educational evaluation, including the one you pay for, when making decisions regarding your child’s educational program. However, the school district is not required to agree with or implement any or all of the results or recommendations of the independent educational evaluation. You may also submit the results of an independent educational evaluation as evidence at a due process hearing.

How do I find a professional or clinic to conduct an independent educational evaluation?

The school district must provide you with a list of qualified independent evaluators when you ask for an independent evaluation.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Connecticut Court Holds Teacher Liable for Student’s After School Injuries

Case Background

In the case of Romanella v. Nielson, a student sued a teacher, principal, board, and town, seeking damages for injuries suffered when the student was assaulted by another pupil outside the doors of a school less than a minute after school dismissal. The teacher and related agents moved more summary judgment which is a preemptive judgment by the court in favor of one party over the other.

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist. In seeking summary judgment, the teacher has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact.

Governmental Immunity 

The teacher, the principal, the board, and the town argued that the defense of governmental immunity applied to bar the case. In law, qualified governmental immunity is available as a defense when the acts complained of are discretionary. A municipality is immune from liability for the performance of governmental acts, as distinguished from ministerial acts.

Governmental acts are performed wholly for the direct benefit of the public and are supervisory or discretionary in nature. On the other hand, ministerial acts are performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion as to the propriety of the action. There are some exceptions to governmental immunity.

The student argued that he was entitled to suit because of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. For the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity to apply, three things are required: (1) an imminent harm; (2) an identifiable victim; and (3) a public official to whom it is apparent that his or her conduct is likely to subject that victim to that harm. The identifiable person-imminent harm exception to government immunity applies not only to identifiable individuals but also to narrowly defined identified classes of foreseeable victims. School children who are statutorily compelled to attend school, during school hours on school days, can be an identifiable class of victims.

The Court’s Decision

The issue was whether the failure of school personnel to recognize the possibility of the impending assault on the student and/or their failure to take any steps to forestall it, constituted discretionary or ministerial acts. The court found that the town’s duty in this case was discretionary in nature. The student also claimed that the events that allegedly occurred in the classroom before the assault transformed him into an identifiable person subject to the threat of imminent harm and, as a result, the defense of qualified governmental immunity was not available.

The court found that genuine issues of fact existed concerning whether school officials knew or should have known of the possibility of the impending assault on the student. The atmosphere in the classroom immediately prior to the assault could reasonably have been interpreted as one in which the student was an identifiable victim subject to the threat of imminent harm. The student’s claims were not barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity as a matter of law. The teacher’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Teacher Evaluations in Connecticut

Connecticut Teacher Evaluations

Under Connecticut General Statute §10-151b, each year teachers in Connecticut must be evaluated by either the Superintendent of Schools or by someone appointed by the Superintendent.  The evaluations shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, strengths, areas needing improvement, strategies for improvement, and multiple indicators of student academic growth.  In the event that a teacher does not receive a summative evaluation during the school year, the teacher must receive a “not rated,” designation for that school year.

The Superintendent shall report both the status of teacher evaluations to the local or regional Board of Education on or before June first of each year, and the status of the implementation of the teacher evaluation and support program, including the frequency of evaluations, aggregate evaluation ratings, the number of teachers who have not been evaluated, and other requirements as determined by the Department of Education, to the Commissioner of Education on or before September fifteenth of each year.

If a teacher believes that the proper procedure was not followed during their review and/or evaluation, the teacher should look to the collective bargaining agreement maintained within the School District, as Connecticut defers to such agreements for grievance procedures on evaluations.

Each local and regional Board of Education must adopt and implement a teacher evaluation and support program.  If a local or regional Board of Education is unable to develop a teacher evaluation and support program through mutual agreement with a Professional Development and Evaluation Committee, then the Board of Education and the Professional Development and Evaluation Committee shall consider the Model Teacher Evaluation and Support Program adopted by the State Board of Education as a rubric and can adopt the model if agreed upon.  C.G.S. §10-151b(b).

Teacher Evaluation and Support Program Guidelines

As of July 1, 2012, the State Board of Education has adopted, in consultation with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council, guidelines for a Model Teacher Evaluation and Support Program. Such guidelines include, but are not limited to:

(A) the use of four performance evaluations designators: Exemplary, Proficient, Developing and Below Standard;

(B) the use of multiple indicators of student academic growth and development in teacher evaluations;

(C) methods for assessing student academic growth and development;

(D) a consideration of control factors tracked by the state-wide public school information system that may influence teacher performance ratings, including, but not limited to, student characteristics, student attendance and student mobility;

(E) minimum requirements for teacher evaluation instruments and procedures, including scoring systems to determine Exemplary, Proficient, Developing and Below Standard ratings;

(F) the development and implementation of periodic training programs regarding the teacher evaluation and support programs to be offered by the local or regional Board of Education or Regional Educational Service Center for the school district to teachers who are employed by such local or regional Board of Education, whose performance is being evaluated, and to administrators who are employed by such local or regional Boards of Education and who are conducting performance evaluations;

(G) the provision of professional development services based upon the individual’s or group of individuals’ needs that are identified through the evaluation process;

(H) the creation of individual teacher improvement and remediation plans for teachers whose performance is developing or below standard, designed in consultation with such teacher and his or her exclusive bargaining representative for certified teachers and that (i) identify resources, support and other strategies to be provided by the local or regional board of education to address documented deficiencies, (ii) indicate a timeline for implementing such resources, support, and other strategies, in the course of the same school year as the plan is issued, and (iii) include indicators of success including a summative rating of proficient or better immediately at the conclusion of the improvement and remediation plan;

(I) opportunities for career development and professional growth; and

(J) a validation procedure to audit evaluation ratings of exemplary or below standard by the department or a third-party entity approved by the department.

C.G.S. §10-151b(c)(1).

Confidentiality Rule and its Exceptions

After a teacher has received their performance evaluation, Connecticut General Statute §10-151c ensures confidentiality from the public. “Any records maintained or kept on file by the Department of Education or any local or regional board of education that are records of teacher performance and evaluation shall not be deemed to be public records…provided that any teacher may consent in writing to the release of such teacher’s records by the department or a board of education.”

However, Connecticut does provide certain exceptions to the confidentiality rule, providing that records maintained or kept on file by the Department of Education or any local or regional Board of Education that are records of the personal misconduct of a teacher, shall be deemed to be public records and shall be subject to disclosure in certain circumstances.  Further, disclosure of such records of a teacher’s personal misconduct shall not require the consent of the teacher.

Despite confidentiality, the teacher is allowed access to his or her personnel file and its contents under Connecticut General Statute §10-151a.  The teacher shall be entitled to knowledge of, access to, and, upon request, a copy of supervisory records and reports of competence, personal character and efficiency maintained in their personnel file with reference to evaluation of performance.  If a teacher would like to investigate the contents of their personnel file, that is their right under Connecticut law, but must make a request to the Board of Education of the town in which he or she is employed.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

If you are an employer or teacher and are faced with the possibility of termination, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: What You Need To Know

What is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) was originally enacted in 1975. It primarily imposes certain legal obligations upon public schools regarding the provision of education for students with disabilities. IDEA requires that “all children with disabilities have available a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.”

In other words, public school districts are essentially required to provide free services to all children with disabilities in order to facilitate an appropriate education that meets their needs.

What Qualifies as “Free Appropriate Public Education”? 

To break it down further, the term “free appropriate public education” typically means special education and related services that:

A). Have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;

B). Meets the standards of the state educational agency;

C). Include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the state involved; and

D). Are provided in conformity with the individualized education program.

The individualized education program, otherwise known as “IEP,” is a written plan detailing a child’s specifically-tailored special education program as required by IDEA. IDEA provides a vehicle in which parents disagreeing with their child’s IEP can ask for due process hearings to address their concerns. Representation by an experienced education law attorney is vital to ensuring that a school meets its IDEA obligations and properly facilitates a child’s success.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

If you have questions about special education law, please contact the experienced education attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act & Informed Consent

What is the Individuals with Disabilities Act?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) is a federal act that imposes legal obligations upon public school districts to provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities. Connecticut law requires schools to reach out and identify children who may be eligible for special education services. In other words, public schools cannot turn a blind eye to a child in need of services; they must take a proactive approach in determining who needs assistance.

What is an IEP?

After a child has been identified as one that may need special education, the school is obligated to conduct an initial evaluation. If it is determined that the child in fact needs special services, a Planning and Placement Team (“PPT”) will work to construct an individually tailored special education program for the child, otherwise known as “IEP.”

Generally, the school district must obtain informed consent from the parents in order to move forward with this process. Informed consent generally means that the parent must be given full and complete disclosure of all relevant facts and information pertaining to the school’s plan prior to consent.

If parents disagree about a child’s IEP or the initial decision to evaluate the child for special education services, they can file a due process claim with the State Department of Education. Likewise, if parents withhold informed consent for a plan, the school district can also file a due process claim to determine how to move forward.

Both the parents and the school district have the right to be represented by an attorney at the due process hearing. Both parties will have the ability to present oral argument and evidence as well as cross examine witnesses. As a result, it’s critical that parents have an attorney with thorough knowledge of education law to ensure that a school adequately fulfills all of its obligations under IDEA.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

If you have questions about special education law, please contact the experienced education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Expedited Special Education Due Process Hearings Explained

What is a due process hearing?

A due process hearing is a legal proceeding that ensures fairness in the decision-making process regarding your child’s special education needs. As a parent, if you disagree with a proposed or refused action pertaining to your child’s education, you or the school district may initiate a due process hearing to resolve the disagreement.

What is an expedited hearing?

An expedited hearing is a hearing that is held quickly so that a situation can be addressed without undue delay. In an expedited hearing, the hearing must occur within 20 school days of the date the hearing is requested and the hearing officer must make his or her decision within ten school days of the close of the hearing. The parties involved in the hearing must exchange information to be presented as evidence at least two business days prior to an expedited hearing. An expedited hearing will be arranged when the following occurs:

  • The school district thinks that keeping your child in the current placement is highly likely to result in injury to your child or to others and the school district wants to put your child in an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) for no more than 45 days;
  • The school district does not want your child, who is placed in an IAES, to return to his or her original placement at the end of the 45 day period because it believes your child is likely to injure him/herself or others in that placement;
  • You believe that the school district has improperly removed your child for more than ten consecutive school days;
  • You believe that the school district has improperly removed your child for more than ten school days in a school year;
  • You do not agree with the school district’s placement of your child in an IAES; or
  • You do not agree with the manifestation determination.
Potential Outcomes

The hearing officer may order that your child be returned to the placement from which he or she was removed or placed in an interim alternative education setting for no more than 45 school days if it is determined that keeping your child in the current placement will more than likely result in injury to the child or to others. The hearing officer may not order a placement in an IAES for more than 45 school days at any one time. However, the school may ask for this process to be repeated. (A Parent’s Guide to Special Education in Connecticut).

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please call the experienced Education Attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

What Parents Should Know About School Suspensions in Connecticut

It is now well-established that out-of-school sanctions have an adverse academic and social impact on students. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions contribute to poor performance in school, higher drop-out rates, and increased misbehavior at school. One report found that students who had been subjected to out-of-class disciplinary sanctions tended to score lower on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and Connecticut Academic Proficiency Test (CAPT). In another study, 89% of sixteen and seventeen-year-old students in the juvenile justice system had previously been suspended or expelled from school.

Despite their negative impact on students, Connecticut schools continue to resort with alarming frequency to out-of-school sanctions. During the 2007-2008 school year for example, as a result of suspensions or expulsions, schoolchildren within the state missed over 250,000 school days.

What is the law in Connecticut on school suspensions?

The General Assembly has defined suspension as exclusion from school privileges and transportation for no more than ten days. Under Section 10-233b of the Connecticut General Statutes, school administrators can suspend students only if the conduct:

  1.  violates publicized policy of the local or regional board of education;
  2.  seriously disrupts the educational process; or
  3.  endangers persons or property

If the student’s conduct occurred on school grounds, then it needs to satisfy only one of the elements. If the student’s conduct occurred off-campus, then administrators can suspend students only if the misbehavior violates publicized policy and seriously disrupts the educational process. We will discuss each of the elements in detail below so parents can better understand what kind of student conduct would result in suspension.

What conduct qualifies as “violation of publicized policy?”

The Connecticut General Assembly has authorized local or regional boards of education to prescribe disciplinary rules and policies for the schools they oversee. Individual schools, in accordance with these policies, will typically list prohibited conduct in school handbooks. The school administration may suspend a student if he or she engages in such conduct.

If your child is suspended under the publicized policy category, you should first consult the school handbook to determine whether his or her conduct violates any articulated school disciplinary rule. You will likely be able to make a stronger case for your child during suspension hearings (which we will discuss in more detail later in the section) if you can show that his or her conduct is neither prohibited by the school nor violates any school rules.

There are three things to keep in mind in the process. First, Connecticut courts have held that school rules have to be clear and understandable so students and parents can reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited. Second, under the Connecticut statutes, school districts must inform parents and students at least annually of board policies related to student conduct, which they usually do through student handbooks. Finally, any school rule must have some rational relationship with its intended purpose.

It is worth noting that this is not a difficult standard for the board or the school to meet since it does not have to show that the rule is the best approach, but only that there is some reasonable connection between the two.

What kind of behavior qualifies as “serious disruption of the educational process”?

According to guidelines issued by the Connecticut State Department of Education, a student’s conduct is not a serious disruption of the educational process unless it substantially interferes with the operation of a class, study hall, library, or any meeting involving students and school staff. The Department has noted that recurring or cumulative disruptions, even if not considered serious if taken separately, can amount to a serious disruption of the educational process. In making this determination, the Department suggests that administrators should consider the frequency, number, and severity of the offenses.

For conduct that occurs off school grounds, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that there has to be a concrete relationship between the off-campus conduct and the school’s operation. Moreover, the General Assembly has set forth the following criteria that administrators may consider in determining whether a student’s conduct is a serious disruption: (1) Whether the incident occurred close to a school; (2) Whether other students or a gang were involved; (3) Whether the conduct involved violence, threats of violence, or unlawful use of a weapon and whether there were injuries; and (4) Whether the conduct involved the use of alcohol.

What kind of behavior qualifies as “endangerment of persons or property”?

The State Department of Education has defined “endangerment of persons or property” as conduct that exposes a student to an injury, risk, or a harmful situation. Under this definition, fighting, bullying, possession of firearms or controlled substances, or damage to personal or school property would satisfy this requirement.

What if my child has a school disciplinary history or has never been suspended?

Administrators may consider a student’s past disciplinary record when determining the length of a suspension or whether it is warranted in the first place. If your child has never previously been suspended or expelled, the school administrator has discretion under the law to waive or shorten the suspension. Instead, school officials may require the student to complete an administration-specified program, which parents would not have to pay for. Conversely, the school administration may also hand down a harsher suspension period if your child has a record of past suspension, expulsion, or removal from class.

What action is the state taking to minimize the academic impact of school suspensions?

Under the Connecticut statutes, an in-school suspension consists of exclusion from the regular classroom, but not from school altogether, for no more than ten consecutive days. Based on data showing that out-of-school suspensions actually perpetuated misbehavior and increased the likelihood that students would end up in the juvenile justice system, the General Assembly moved to increase the use of in-school suspensions as a disciplinary tool. Starting July 1, 2010, all suspensions have to be in school unless:

  1. The student poses such a danger to persons or property or a serious disruption to the educational process that he or she should be out of school; or
  2.  It is appropriate based on a student’s past disciplinary problems, specifically if the administration tried to address the student’s behavior through means other than suspension or expulsion.

The Connecticut State Department of Education has also recommended that administrators should consider the following mitigating factors before moving ahead with out-of-school suspensions:

  • Age, Grade, and Developmental Stage of Student:

A younger child may not have the developmental maturity to understand that his or her conduct is inappropriate in a school setting. Alternative behavioral support programs educating him or her about this fact could be a more effective and less severe form of discipline.

  • The Student’s Reasons for Engaging in Misbehavior:

If the student did not intend to harm someone or something, but was acting out of frustration, then an out-of-school suspension may be unwarranted because it would not effectively address the underlying problems. Examples of mitigating reasons include teasing by peers, family issues, etc.

  • The Student’s Past Disciplinary Problems and Likelihood of Recurrence:

If the student does not have a disciplinary history, then an out-of-school suspension could be unnecessarily harsh. Instead, an in-school suspension or another behavioral support program could be equally as effective in punishing and deterring the student from engaging in such misconduct in the future. But if the student does have a history of disciplinary problems, an out-of-school suspension could be the next logical step in addressing the student’s behavior.

  •  The Risk of Loss of Instruction:

If a student is disengaging from class, an out-of-school suspension may compromise academic performance and actually exacerbate the student’s lack of interest in school.

  • Cultural Factors:

A student could misbehave due to misunderstandings and different interpretations of events based on race, ethnicity, and linguistic differences.

  • Extent of Parental Support in Addressing Student’s Misbehavior:

Administrators should consult with parents whenever a student is misbehaving in school. If there is not a history of such collaboration, then the school should involve parents in addressing a student’s misconduct before moving on to more serious measures.

If the school administration does proceed with an in-school suspension, the pupil can, depending on the administration’s preference, serve the suspension in the school or in a different school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional board of education.

What are my child’s legal rights before a suspension?

In Goss v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court set forth a student’s procedural legal rights before he or she could be suspended. In that case, eight students had been suspended following an outbreak of student unrest without a hearing to determine the underlying facts resulting in the suspension. The Court noted that students facing suspension were entitled to notice of the reasons for the suspension and an informal hearing to tell their side of the story.

What are the school’s notice requirements? What can I do to prepare for the hearing?

The General Assembly, consistent with the decision in Goss, requires school officials to notify parents within twenty-four hours regarding the proposed suspension. Before the suspension, absent an emergency, the student is entitled to notice of the reasons for the suspension and an informal hearing in front of the administrator to explain his or her side of the story. Under the Connecticut statutes, an emergency exists if the student poses an unwarranted danger to a person or property or disruption to the educational process. If this is the case, then the hearing must be held as soon after the suspension as possible.

The hearing is the best opportunity for the student to persuade the school administration to dismiss or shorten the length of the suspension. To that end, parents may want to rely on the information mentioned above in helping their child craft a strategy during the give-and-take with the school administrator. For instance, students may point out that their conduct did not fall under the list of prohibited conduct warranting suspension or that the misbehavior did not constitute a serious disruption of the educational process.

Even if the student’s misbehavior was inappropriate within a school setting, students may also invoke the mitigating factors identified by the State Department of Education to shorten the length of the suspension or receive, instead, an in-school suspension. The particular approach to contesting a suspension will depend on the facts and circumstances of the student’s case.

What are my child’s rights after the hearing?

If the administration authorizes a suspension after a hearing, parents cannot appeal the decision. But the school must give the student the opportunity to complete homework, including examinations, which he or she missed during the suspension period. Under the law, schools also cannot use out-of-school suspensions to discipline students more than ten times or fifty days during the school year, whichever comes first, without convening a more formal hearing. The limit for in-school suspensions is fifteen times or fifty days during the school year.

DOE In-School Suspension Guidelines

If the administration imposes an in-school suspension, parents should note that the Department of Education has issued guidelines on what they consider effective in-school suspension programs.

First, the program should have a strong academic focus. To that end, the Department recommends that administrators group students together by age or grade and have the group supervised by a qualified individual. School officials should also keep the student to teacher ratio low and have certified teachers in essential areas such as math or reading to provide instruction to students. Along with providing students with an academically oriented program, administrators must allow students to receive and complete schoolwork from their regular classroom.

Second, the program should include a strong counseling component so students can get the necessary support to correct their behavior. Accordingly, guidance counselors, social workers, or psychologists should be available to students in the in-school suspension room. Quality programs would help the student manage his or her emotions, handle challenging situations more effectively, and develop positive relationships with both students and teachers.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to an education law attorney about a pressing matter, please don’t hesitate to contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced education attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

Understanding IEP Due Process

IEP due process is protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA), and provides parents with the right to resolve disputes with their school district. There are two ways to resolve disputes, mediation and a due process hearing.

What is Mediation?

During mediation, you and a representative of the school district meet with a neutral third party who then tries to help you reach an agreement. The mediator has no authority to impose a decision. Their job is to help you and the school district come up with a mutually agreed upon decision with regards to your dispute. You are not required to mediate but it can be a very good way to resolve your dispute. Each state has a list of mediators who are assigned cases on a random basis and they finance the cost.

What is an IEP Due Process Hearing?

If you cannot reach a decision through mediation, or if you prefer not to mediate you can request a due process hearing. Here, you and the school district present written evidence about the disputed issue and have witnesses testify before a hearing officer. If you do not agree with the outcome of the hearing, you can appeal the decision all the way to state or federal court.

Common IEP Disputes 

Usually, disputed issues revolve around parts of the IEP that cannot be agreed upon. If the school district has violated a legal rule, such as failing to hold an IEP meeting, conduct an evaluation, meet a time limit or implement the IEP, you must file a complaint. Each school district has its own complaint procedure. IEP due process disputes are usually centered around disagreements over the following:

  • A Child’s Evaluation.
  • A Child’s Eligibility.
  • A Child’s Placement.
  • The Methodology Used to Assess a Child.
  • Related Services like Aides and Specialists.
  • Changes to a Child’s IEP program.
  • Suspension or Expulsion of a Child.

IDEA requires you to formally file for IEP due process within two years after you know of the dispute. If you do not file within two years, you lose your rights. During the hearing process, your child is entitled to remain in their current placement until you reach an agreement with the school, settle the matter through mediation or get a court decision. Using a lawyer or special education advocate during due process is within your rights as a parent and may increase your chances of success.

Paying Your Legal Fees

The school district does not have to pay your legal fees. During mediation, however, you can ask the school district to pay for any fees you have accumulated as part of your proposed settlement

If you go to hearing and you win your case, you will be entitled to reimbursement of your attorney’s fees. If you lose the hearing you are responsible for your own attorney fees but you will not have to pay the school district’s attorney fees. If a parent brings an attorney to a resolution meeting, the school district may also bring an attorney.

Formal Request of IEP Due Process

You must formally request IEP due process in order for a mediation or a fair hearing to be scheduled. You must provide specific written information about the dispute to initiate the process. There can be no hearing or mediation until you complete this first step.

You must provide written notice to the school district AND send a copy to the state department of education branch responsible for special education. Your written request must include:

1. Your name and address;
2. Your child’s name and address;
3. The name of your child’s school;
4. A description of the disputed issue;
5. Your desired resolution; and
6. Whether you want mediation or go directly to the hearing process.

Credit: UnderstandingSpecialEducation. This case was not handled by our firm. 

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph Maya or the other experienced education attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.