Posts tagged with "Connecticut schools"

The Use of Corporal Punishment in Connecticut Schools

Corporal Punishment in Schools

Perusing my Google Reader feeds, I came across an article concerning student spankings as a form of school discipline in the Springtown Independent School District, located in Texas. A parent complained that her daughter endured “welts, blisters, and bruises from a male administrator’s paddle,” prompting the school board to modify its rules regarding corporal punishment.

Before the complaints… policy only allowed male administrators to paddle male students and female administrators to paddle female students. … Parents must now approve of the use of corporal punishment before it can be administered; the form of punishment is limited to one semester; and if the administrator is of the opposite sex, a same-sex adult must also be present.[1]

Whether or not this is progress or backtracking is the subject of debate. Deborah Sendek, Program Director of the Center for Effective Discipline, characterized this action as “disturbing,” adding, “We think there are much more efficient ways and effective ways to work with kids in terms of discipline problems.”[2]

Application of the Eighth Amendment

In 1979, the United States Supreme Court validated the use of corporal punishment in public schools in Ingraham v. Wright. It reasoned that under the common law, “the State itself may impose such corporal punishment as is reasonably necessary ‘for the proper education of the child and for the maintenance of group discipline.’”[3] The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment applied only in the criminal context, and the Court declined to extend the protection to corporal punishment.

The openness of the public school and its supervision by the community afford significant safeguards against the kinds of abuses from which the Eighth Amendment protects the prisoner. … Public school teachers and administrators are privileged at common law to inflict only such corporal punishment as is reasonably necessary for the proper education and discipline of the child; any punishment going beyond the privilege may result in both civil and criminal liability.[4]

Today, thirty-one (31) states plus the District of Columbia banned corporal punishment in public schools; two states – Iowa and New Jersey – extend the prohibition to use in private schools.

School Discipline Laws in Connecticut

Connecticut banned this practice in 1989 and implemented two laws affecting school discipline. The first, General Statutes § 53-20(b)(1), prohibits the maltreatment, torture, overworking, or cruel or unlawful punishment of a child under the age of 19 by anyone with the control and custody of [that child], in any capacity whatsoever.” Likewise, the Connecticut legislature has codified the use of reasonable force in the public school context:

A teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor child for school purposes may use reasonable force to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to (A) protect himself or others from immediate physical injury, (B) obtain possession of a dangerous instrument or controlled substance, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 21a-240, upon or within the control of such minor, (C) protect property from physical damage or (D) restrain such minor or remove such minor to another area, to maintain order.[5]

However, these statutes are inapplicable to private schools in this State. At one Christian school located in Fairfield County, the student-parent handbook outlines the “controlled conditions” under which paddling of students is permitted.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

If you have any questions regarding school discipline, or any education law matter, contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.


[1] “After Complaint, School Relaxes Rule on Opposite Sex Student Spankings,” by Molly McDonough. September 26, 2012: www.abajournal.com/news/article/after_complaint_school_relaxes_rule_on_opposite_sex_student_spankings

[2] “Texas school board changes spanking rules,” by CBS News. September 25, 2012: www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162_57520051/texas-school-board-changes-spanking-rules/

[3] Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 662 (1977).

[4] Id. at 670.

[5] Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-18(6).

Search and Seizure: Your Child’s Fourth Amendment Rights in School

As drugs and weapons infiltrate our nation’s schools, it is imperative that school officials take the necessary steps to maintain safety and preserve order in your child’s school. With that being said, your child has a right to privacy and school officials must not be overzealous in their investigation of alleged violations of school policy. The following will provide you, as a parent, with a basic understanding of the rights your child has as well as the requirements your child’s school must adhere to regarding the search of his or her person or property while in school.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by agents of the government, which includes school officials. The Fourth Amendment provides that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”

First, we will discuss your child’s Fourth Amendment rights while he or she is at school and the applicable standard that will allow school administrators to conduct a search. Second, we will look at the permissible scope of locker and desk searches, searches of personal items, such as knapsacks and pocketbooks, as well as the use of drug testing, sniffer dogs and metal detectors.

While this is a practical overview of Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues pertaining to your child and their school, you should contact one of our attorneys at Maya Murphy P.C. if you believe that your child’s rights have been violated by a school official in the course of an investigation.

How does the Fourth Amendment apply to my child while at school?

The application of the Fourth Amendment to an in-school search of your child or their property differs from the more generally applicable criminal standard. With respect to the criminal standard, the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officials to first demonstrate that they have “probable cause” to believe that a crime has been committed. This usually means that evidence must be presented to a judge and a warrant must be obtained before law enforcement officials may conduct a search of private property. Unlike the criminal standard, the requirements for conducting a permissible search of your child while he or she is in school are somewhat different.

The United States Supreme Court has articulated a clear-cut standard that school officials must adhere to when conducting a search of your child or his or her property. First, school officials do not need to obtain a warrant before conducting a search of your child or his or her property. The Court reasoned that requiring school officials to obtain a warrant would interfere with their ability to obtain evidence and maintain the informal disciplinary procedures that schools use to preserve order. Moreover, the need to maintain safety in the school environment at all times outweighs the warrant requirement.

Unlike the criminal standard that requires probable cause, the legal standard set forth by the court for in-school searches by school officials is “reasonable, under all of the circumstances.” In determining what “reasonable” is, the Court has developed a two-fold inquiry before a search may be conducted of your child or his or her property. First, the search must be “justified at its inception.” Second, the search must be “permissible in its scope.”

What does “justified at inception” mean?

A school official that conducts a search of your child must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will reveal evidence demonstrating that your child has violated or is violating school rules or the law. Here, unlike the probable cause standard requiring probability that a search will produce evidence, school officials using the reasonableness standard may conduct a search irrespective of whether it is probable that a search will reveal evidence of wrongdoing.

School administrators, however, must not abuse this leniency in conducting a search and must do so “with reason and common sense.” This relatively relaxed approach, while justified in deference to the safety of the school population, pertains only if at the time of the search, school officials had reasonable suspicion in conducting a search of your child or his or her property.

Reasonable suspicion sufficient to satisfy the “justified at inception” prong can be found in many different ways. For example, if your child is acting in a manner indicating that he or she has consumed alcohol or has taken illicit drugs, this will likely be found to be reasonable. Additional examples include, the smell of alcohol or drugs on your child, or other students informing school officials that your child may be engaging in activity inconsistent with school policy or the law.

To justify a search of your child or their property, school officials must have a logical reason for doing so in order to satisfy the “justified at inception” requirement. If a school official is able to demonstrate that school safety concerns were the primary factors for conducting a search, it is likely that the search will be found reasonable.

What does “permissible in its scope” mean?

A search will be found “permissible in its scope” when the measures that school officials employ in searching your child or their property were reasonably related to the objective of the search, and that the search was not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of your child.

First, when conducting a search, school officials must show that the search was related to the object of the search. Therefore, if your child is accused of allegedly possessing or selling illegal drugs, a more thorough search may be tolerated. On the other hand, if your child is accused of possessing a bottle of alcohol, a search of her pocketbook or his knapsack may be reasonable, while the removal of clothing would likely be unreasonable.

Second, the search should not invade the legitimate privacy right of your child in relation to the search. Taking into consideration your child’s age and sex, different search procedures will be subjectively evaluated. For example, a school was found to have violated a thirteen-year old girl’s Fourth Amendment rights after school officials were informed that she allegedly possessed prescription painkillers. Following a search of the girl’s knapsack, which revealed no evidence of prescription drugs, she was sent to the nurse’s office for a strip search, which further revealed no evidence of prescription drugs.

Due to its highly intrusive nature, a strip search of your child should only be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion of danger or the resort to underwear for hiding evidence of wrongdoing. Conversely, pat-downs are held to be minimally intrusive. Thus, the means used in conducting a search and the age and sex of your child are pertinent factors that school officials must consider before conducting a search of your child’s person or their property.

What if a search of my child or their property results in the discovery of another item of contraband not subject to the initial search?

If a school administrator conducts a search of your child or their property when there is reasonable suspicion to do so and that search results in discovery of an item that was not the intended object of the search, the school may still use that evidence of contraband to discipline your child for violating school policy or the law. An example of such a scenario would include checking your child’s bag or purse for cigarettes and finding of illicit drugs, such as marijuana or other contraband.

Moreover, the school still may take disciplinary action against your child even if they violate your child’s Fourth Amendment rights. These violations, however, may provide grounds for you and your child to bring a Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action against the school and school personnel for infringing upon your child’s civil rights.

Can my child’s school search their personal property?

Provided school officials adhere to the “reasonable, under all of the circumstances” requirement, your child’s personal property, such as purses, backpacks, and even their car is subject to being searched. Although conducting a search of your child’s property is permissible, school officials still must adhere to the same standard applicable to the search of your child’s person, i.e., the search must be “justified at inception,” and it must be “permissible in its scope.” Again, the search must not be excessively intrusive, and school officials must adhere to this requirement even when it comes to the searching of your child’s personal property.

Can my child’s locker or desk be subject to a search?

The short answer is yes. The Connecticut General Assembly enacted legislation, whereby, all boards of education may authorize school officials or law enforcement officials to search lockers and other school property that is available for use by your child, which includes desks, for the presence of weapons, contraband or the fruits of a crime. This legislation expressly states that a search of your child’s locker or other property owned by the school is permitted so long as the “reasonable, under all of the circumstances,” requirement is found (i.e., reasonable at inception and permissible in its scope).

Can my child’s school conduct a search without having reasonable suspicion?

Having discussed searches conducted by school officials where there was reasonable suspicion to support a search of your child or their property, we now turn our attention to random and suspicion-less searches involving your child.

Our education law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

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 attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients.

Parents: The Connecticut Law on School Expulsions

Under Section 10-233d of the Connecticut General Statutes, expulsion is an exclusion from school for a period of ten or more days. As with suspension, a student can be expelled by the local or regional school board if his or her conduct (1) violates publicized policy; (2) seriously disrupts the educational process; or (3) endangers persons or property.

For actions that occurred off school grounds, the student’s conduct has to have both violated publicized policy and seriously disrupted the educational process. The local board can consider (1) whether the conduct happened close to the school; (2) whether other students or a gang were involved; (3) whether the conduct involved violence, threats, unlawful use of a weapon, and any injuries; and (4) whether the conduct involved the use of alcohol.

What conduct qualifies for “mandatory expulsion” on school grounds?

The Connecticut General Assembly enacted legislation mandating expulsion for students who have engaged in specific dangerous conduct. If a student possesses a firearm or another weapon while on school grounds or at a school-sponsored activity, the school must expel that student for no less than one calendar year under state and federal law. The federal law, the Guns-Free School Act, defines “firearm” as:

  • Any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
  • The frame or receiver of such a weapon;
  • Any firearm muffler or silencer;
  • Any destructive device, including a bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or similar device.

Building on the federal law, the General Assembly requires mandatory expulsion for no less than one calendar year for a student in possession of a firearm, deadly weapon, dangerous instrument, or martial arts weapon while on school grounds, subject to exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Listed below are the definitions for each of the terms:

  • Deadly weapon: Any weapon from which a shot may be discharged, or a switchblade knife, gravity knife, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, or metal knuckles.
  • Dangerous instrument: Any instrument capable of causing death or serious injury.
  • Martial Arts Weapon: A nunchaku, kama, kasari-fundo, octagon sai, tonfa, or Chinese star.
What conduct qualifies for “mandatory expulsion” off school grounds?

The requirements for mandatory expulsion differ if the conduct occurred off school grounds. In such cases, the school must recommend expulsion for the student only if that student carries a pistol without a permit or uses a firearm, instrument, or weapon in the commission of a crime.

Moreover, the board must expel a student for at least one calendar year if the student is engaged in the sale or distribution on or off school grounds of a controlled substance, irrespective of the amount. Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogenic substances would fall under this definition. Parents should consult student handbooks for a more extensive list of prohibited controlled substances.

What are my child’s legal rights before expulsion?

The General Assembly has mandated that, unless there is an emergency, a student facing expulsion be entitled to a formal hearing in front of a hearing board within ten days after the proposed expulsion. As with suspension, an emergency exists if the student facing expulsion poses an unwarranted danger to a person or property or such a serious disruption to the educational process that the school has to delay the hearing until after the suspension.

Since school expulsion is a more serious form of discipline, only local or regional school boards can make the decision to expel a student. The following section will provide an overview of the procedures during expulsion proceedings, so parents can gain a better understanding of their child’s legal rights.

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

When the administration recommends a student for expulsion, the local or regional school board must provide parents with written notice within twenty-four hours detailing the date, time, a plain statement of the matters at hand, and a list of local free or reduced-fee legal services. In addition, the board must provide all documentary evidence that the administration plans to use during the hearing.

To prepare for the hearing, parents should examine carefully the school record stating the facts of the matter, talk to school witnesses to see what they are going to say, and arrange for additional witnesses, especially ones that can testify favorably on your child’s character, to tell your child’s side of the story at the hearing.

What are my child’s legal rights at the hearing?

At the hearing, two issues will be decided: (1) whether the child should be expelled; and (2) if so, the length of the expulsion. Under Section 10-233d, at least three members of the local board of education have to preside over the expulsion proceedings. Alternatively, the school board can delegate the duty to an impartial hearing officer provided the officer is not a member of the appointing board.

In both cases, neither the board members nor the hearing officer can discuss the case outside the hearing. Should the administration elect to retain an attorney to represent it in proceedings, it cannot choose an attorney that represents both the local board of education and the administration.

Generally, the administration will begin the proceedings by laying out the underlying facts leading to expulsion. Then, both the administration and the student will have an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Following the presentation of evidence, the members of the board can ask both sides questions concerning the expulsion. Before the board makes a final decision on whether the student should be expelled, both sides can present additional arguments opposing or supporting the expulsion.

Possible Recommended Results

The hearing officer can recommend one of the following three results. First, they can decide not to expel the student, thereby allowing the child to return to school immediately after the hearing.

Second, the board can recommend your child’s expulsion. If the board adopts this recommendation, the child, for the duration of the expulsion, will be ineligible to attend any other schools within the district or participate in any on or off campus school activities. The board can review the student’s disciplinary history to decide on the length of the expulsion, but cannot consider it for purposes of determining whether to move forward with the expulsion. For instance, if a student has been expelled only once, the board has discretion to shorten (or even waive) the expulsion.

Finally, the board can recommend “suspended expulsion.” In this case, the student is legally expelled, but is permitted to stay in school on a probationary status. The administration, however, can thereafter invoke the expulsion if the student engages in a further act of misconduct.

What are my child’s legal rights after the hearing?

Under the Connecticut statutes, parents are to receive a decision within twenty-four hours of the hearing Should the board proceed with the expulsion, parents cannot appeal the decision, but still have some options for their child.

First, if your child is under sixteen years old, then the local board must provide him or her with an alternative educational program during the course of the expulsion. If your child is between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, then the board must provide your child with an alternative educational opportunity if he or she wants to continue school and meets specified conditions set by the board.

But schools do not have to provide alternative educational opportunities if the student has been expelled previously, or was expelled for possession of a firearm or a controlled substance. While administrators have discretion in designing alternative educational programs, eligible students are entitled to at least two hours of tutoring per day and instruction in the core subjects of English, math, social studies, and science.

Second, parents can apply for their child to be enrolled in another school But the potential receiving school can reject your child’s application by adopting the decision of the previous school without a hearing on the matter. It can also hold an informal hearing to determine whether the prospective student would be expelled under that school’s rules and policies.

Third, the parent can apply on behalf of their child for early readmission to the school. The laws do not prescribe criteria for a child’s early readmission. Instead, readmission decisions are at the discretion of the local board, or a superintendent, who may themselves prescribe specific criteria for readmission.

Expunging Misconduct from a Student’s Record

As a closing note, notice of the expulsion and the nature of the misconduct must be on the student’s educational record. If the student graduates from high school, then the administrator must expunge the expulsion from the student’s record unless the student was in possession of a firearm or a deadly weapon. Alternatively, if the board shortened or waived the expulsion, then it can choose to expunge the expulsion from the student’s record if he or she completes an administration-specified program.

What are my child’s legal rights when he or she is removed from class?

Removal is defined as exclusion from a classroom for all or part of a single class period given that such exclusion does not extend beyond ninety minutes. A teacher can remove a child from class if that student deliberately causes a serious disruption of the educational process within the classroom. If a teacher decides to proceed with this action, he or she has to send the student to a designated area and immediately inform the principal of the student’s name and the specifics of the incident.

Generally, the school is not obligated to provide the student with an informal hearing before removal. Students, however, are entitled to an informal hearing if the teacher removes the student more than six times during the school year or twice a week, whichever comes first.

Our education law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

If you have any questions regarding school expulsion 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 attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients.

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.

What do I do if my child is suspended?

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.

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.

Our education law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

If you have any questions regarding school suspensions 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 attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients.

Are Special Education Students Held to the Same Disciplinary Rules as Other Students?

Is My Child Obligated to Adhere to the Same Disciplinary Rules as Any Other Student?

The code of student conduct that your child’s school district has in place applies to all students, including students who receive special education and related services. A more detailed look at disciplinary procedures can be found in the Discipline section of this publication. The following will provide you with an overview of certain obligations that both you as a parent and the school district must fulfill when your child has been disciplined due to behavior that may or may not have been disability-related.

The Role of a PPT

Your child’s PPT, of which you are a part, will meet to review the relationship between your child’s behavior and his or her disability. This is known as the “manifestation determination.” The PPT determines if your child’s behavior was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to his or her disability. The PPT will also determine whether your child’s behavior was caused by the school district’s failure to implement his or her IEP.

If the PPT determines that your child’s disability did not cause the subject behavior, then your child will be disciplined as would any other child who behaved in that particular manner. The manifestation determination must be conducted within ten (10) days of any decision to change the placement of your child due to a violation of the code of student conduct.

If the PPT finds that your child’s behavior was a manifestation of his or her disability or was due to a failure to implement his or her IEP, then your child may not be removed from their current educational setting. Thereafter, the PPT must conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan.

A functional behavioral assessment looks at why your child behaved the way he or she did by collecting data to determine the possible causes of the problem and identify strategies to address your child’s behavior. The behavioral intervention plan, which is also developed by your child’s PPT, must be designed to teach your child appropriate behaviors and eliminate behaviors that impede on his or her ability to learn, as well as that of other students in your child’s class.

Interim Educational Settings

School personnel may remove your child from his or her current educational placement and into another appropriate interim educational setting for a maximum of ten (10) consecutive school days. Your child’s IEP determines what an appropriate interim educational plan setting will be. Although your child may be removed from his or her current educational setting and into an interim educational setting if it is found that his or her behavior was not a result of their disability, the child still must continue to receive educational services, so as to continue participation in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in his or her IEP.

There are three circumstances permitting your child’s school district to place your child in an interim educational setting for up to forty-five (45) days, irrespective of whether your child’s behavior was found to be a manifestation of his or her disability:

  • He or she carries a weapon to school or a school function, or is in possession of a weapon in school or at a school function;
  • He or she knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs, or sells or solicits the sale of controlled substances while at school or a school function; or
  • Inflicts serious bodily injury upon another person while at school, or at a school function.

Moreover, a hearing officer may place your child in an interim educational setting if he determines that keeping your child in his or her current placement is substantially likely to result in an injury to your child or to others.

What if I disagree with my child’s placement?

If you disagree with any decision regarding the placement of your child following a disciplinary finding or manifestation determination, you have the right to initiate a due process hearing. Pending a decision by the hearing officer, unless you and the school district agree otherwise, your child will remain in the disciplinary placement until the earlier of the issuance of a decision or expiration of the placement.

In addition, the hearing officer may return your child to the placement from which he or she was removed if the hearing officer determines that removal was not valid or your child’s behavior was a manifestation of his or her disability.

The LEA is responsible for arranging the expedited due process hearing and must do so within twenty (20) school days of the date the complaint requesting the hearing was filed. The hearing officer must make a determination within ten (10) school days after the hearing is held. Decisions as to an expedited due process hearing pertaining to any of the matters in dispute are appealable.

Our education law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

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 attorneys at our Westport, CT office at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients.

What is the Evaluation Process Used to Determine a Child’s Special Education Requirements?

What is an initial evaluation?

An initial evaluation is the first step in the evaluation process for special education. Following a referral, the state education agency or local education agency is obligated to conduct a full and individualized initial evaluation for each child in order to determine his or her eligibility under the IDEA. Prior to conducting an initial evaluation, the agency must obtain informed written parental consent.

Consent to this initial evaluation must be in writing and may only be given following full disclosure of all information needed for you to make a knowledgeable decision pertaining to your child’s educational needs. It bears repeating that parental consent to an initial evaluation may not be construed as consent for the placement of your child in special education or related services. However, failure of a parent to consent to an initial evaluation may allow the school district to initiate a due process hearing as a way to proceed with an initial evaluation.

Conducting the Evaluation

In conducting the evaluation, the local educational agency, “shall use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining – (i) whether the child is a child with a disability; and (ii) the content of the child’s individualized education program, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum…”

An evaluation study will include a review of information collected by the school district through formal and informal observations, a review of schoolwork, standardized tests and other information provided by your child’s teachers and other school personnel.

Requirements Under IDEA

Additional requirements in the evaluation assessment under the IDEA provide that:

(A) assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this section-

(i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
(ii) are provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is not feasible to so provide or administer;
(iii) are used for purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;
(iv) are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and
(v) are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of such assessments;

(B) the child is assessed in all areas of suspected disability;

(C) assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided; and

(D) assessments of children with disabilities who transfer from one school district to another school district in the same academic year are coordinated with such children’s prior and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, to ensure prompt completion of full evaluations.

Parents During Evaluation

As a parent you will receive written notice of the particular tests and procedures that will be used in conducting your child’s evaluation. It is important as a parent to have an active voice in the initial evaluation process and you should share any and all relevant information you have regarding your child’s skills, abilities and needs.

The local educational agency conducting the initial evaluation is required to determine whether your child is one with a disability within sixty (60) days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation and to determine the special educational needs of your child if he or she is eligible. As a parent, if you fail or refuse to produce your child for an initial evaluation the sixty-day time constraint will not be applicable.

Following the initial evaluation, the child’s Planning and Placement Team will meet to evaluate the data and determine whether your child meets the necessary criteria to receive special education and related services. As a parent you will be provided with a written report of the evaluation that was conducted.

Independent Educational Evaluation

If you disagree with the school district’s evaluation you may request an Independent Educational Evaluation, referred to as an IEE. Upon a request for an IEE, the local educational agency must provide information to parents as to where you may obtain an IEE and the criteria necessary in conducting an evaluation. An independent educational evaluation is one that is conducted by a qualified examiner, who is not an employee of the local educational agency, such as your child’s private therapist. Moreover, a parent is not required to inform the school district in advance of plans to obtain an IEE.

Evaluation Disagreements

Although parents should work alongside their local educational agency to resolve any disagreements pertaining to evaluations, there are times where an independent evaluation will be necessary to resolve such disagreements. Parents have the right to an IEE at the local educational agency’s expense unless the local educational agency challenges the need for an IEE. If the local educational agency challenges the IEE they must, “without unnecessary delay” file for a due process hearing to demonstrate that its evaluation was appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by you did not meet the requisite evaluation criteria.

If the local educational agency files for a due process hearing and its evaluation is found to be sufficient, you still have the right to obtain an IEE, but not at public expense. A parent is only entitled to one IEE at public expense each time the local educational agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees. If, however, a hearing officer requests an IEE during the course of a due process hearing, the evaluation shall be conducted at the expense of the agency.

If an IEE is conducted at public expense, the criteria under which the evaluation is obtained, including the location and qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the local educational agency uses when it conducts an evaluation. However, the results of an IEE, irrespective of who pays for it, must be considered by the school district when designing your child’s educational program.

What is a reevaluation? When and why will my child be reevaluated?

The IDEA mandates that a reevaluation must occur at least once every three (3) years, unless the parent and the local educational agency agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. Either parents or local educational agencies may request a reevaluation but the local educational agency must first obtain written parental consent before conducting a reevaluation. Failure to provide the consent needed for your child’s school district to conduct a reevaluation may lead to your local educational agency filing for a due process hearing or seeking other dispute resolution proceedings in order to conduct the reevaluation.

The purpose of conducting a reevaluation is to reassess the educational needs of your child and determine whether your child continues to have a disability, to evaluate the levels of academic achievement and developmental needs of your child, to determine whether special education and related services are still needed for your child, and whether your child’s Individual Education Plan requires modification.

In conducting a reevaluation, your child’s PPT will review existing reports and data to decide if additional testing is needed to determine whether your child is still eligible and continues to need special education and related services.

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 attorneys at our Westport, CT. office at (203) 221-3100 or via email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients.

Student Discipline for Off-Campus Speech in the New Digital Era: What Parents Should Know

“Today, students are connected to each other through email, instant messaging, blogs, social networking sites, and text messages. An email can be sent to dozens or hundreds of other students by hitting ‘send.’ A blog entry posted on a site such as livejournal.com can be instantaneously viewed by students, teachers, and administrators alike. Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse.”

What’s a parent to do?

Students today are equipped with electronic devices that keep them in immediate and continuous contact with fellow students. It is virtually impossible to control (or even monitor) the content of outgoing texts, tweets, IM’s, and emails, and absolutely impossible to censor the content of incoming messages. As a result, “the line between on-campus and off-campus speech is blurred” as are the “outer bounds of administrators’ authority to punish student speech . . . .”

While there are fewer “bright lines” there are things parents should know if their child’s off-campus use of social media (as is becoming increasingly frequent) forms the subject of student discipline. There is also judicial guidance available as to what to tell your child about potential school discipline related cyberspace pitfalls that must be avoided. The purpose of this article is to make parents at least as well-informed as school administrators in the area of permissible student discipline for off-campus, social-networking speech.

Where We Came From

Prior law with respect to students’ First Amendment rights used to be relatively well-settled and fairly predictable. Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The constitutional rights of public school students, however, “are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” In Tinker, the United States Supreme Court said that student rights must be applied in a manner consistent with the “special characteristics of the school environment,” and that school administrators may prohibit student expression that will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”

Because schools are responsible for “teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior,” otherwise constitutionally protected but offensive speech by an adult may, when uttered by a student, give rise to disciplinary action by a school. Educators are also permitted to exercise editorial control over “school-sponsored expressive activities such as school publications or theatrical productions.” The Supreme Court has allowed public school administrators to “take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.”

The Tinker, Fraser, Hazelwood trilogy of cases was once thought to provide parents and teachers with a viable and stable framework for reconciling student rights of free speech with educators’ rights to maintain good order and discipline. Maybe in 1988, but no more.

Where We Are Now

A Federal Court case from Connecticut has shone a spotlight on the difficulty of trying to extrapolate existing law onto the realities of student access to and use of social media. This case began as Doninger v. Niehoff, 514 F. Supp. 2d 199 (D. Conn. 2007) (“Doninger I”) and has a torturous procedural and checkered appellate history. Doninger I was affirmed by Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F. 3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Doninger II”). The case was continued, seeking monetary relief, Doninger v. Niehoff, 594 F. Supp 2d 211 (D. Conn. 2009) (“Doninger III”). On appeal, Doninger III was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Doninger v. Niehoff, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8441 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2011)(“Doninger IV”).

The most important aspect of this serpentine procedural and appellate route is that Doninger arose out of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and has made two trips to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Thus, to the extent the Second Circuit has ruled on issues of law in Doninger II and IV, such precedent is binding on the Connecticut Federal Court and likely to receive highly deferential treatment from the Connecticut State Courts. It also illustrates how the availability and use of social media can cause a simmering dispute between students and educators to rapidly metastasize into an all-out war.

What the Future Holds

“[W]hen it comes to student cyber-speech, the lower courts are in complete disarray, handing down ad hoc decisions that, even when they reach an instinctively correct conclusion, lack consistent, controlling legal principles.” The disjointed state of education law as it pertains to student discipline for off-campus speech was highlighted by two cases that arose in Pennsylvania. In each case, high school students were suspended after posting MySpace profiles of their respective principals, mocking them in lewd and salacious terms. Each of the student’s cases was heard by a different Federal District Judge sitting in different courthouses.

In one case, the student’s suspension was upheld; in the other case, the Judge ruled in favor of the student. Each of the cases was independently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, that hears appeals from Federal trial courts in Pennsylvania. The two separate three-judge panels (from within the same Circuit and applying the same law) issued conflicting decisions. That prompted the entire Third Circuit (consisting of 14 Federal appellate judges) to hear the cases anew, and in both cases find for the students. The focus of the Court’s decision appeared to be on the fact that one student’s speech, in particular, “did not cause a substantial disruption in the school.”

This test differs from the Second Circuit test that requires only a “reasonable foreseeability of disruption in the school.” This sets the stage for the United States Supreme Court to hear a case that will allow it to resolve an apparent conflict between the Circuits. Until the Supreme Court speaks to the issue, parents and students will have to glean guidance from what the courts have said about imposing school discipline for off-campus speech.

Technology: A Two-Edged Sword

Parents and students should be aware that at least one company now exists that is capable of scouring the Internet for everything a person may have said or done online in the course of the last seven years. Despite initial concerns, the Federal Trade Commission has determined that the company’s activities are in compliance with the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Less than a third of the data developed by the company comes from major social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace.

Much of the information comes from deep web searches that find comments on blogs and posts on smaller social sites, like Tumblr and even Craigslist. Photos posted to sharing sites such as Flickr, Picasa, Yfrog, and Photobucket are also easily discoverable. The “terms of service” agreements on most sites make all comments and content publicly available.

While such company presently researches candidates for employment, rather than students, its import for the future is clear: nothing said or done on the Internet is private.

The Takeaway for Parents or Students
  • Students retain their constitutional rights of freedom of speech or expression while in or out of school.

BUT:

  • School administrators may prohibit student expression that will materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.
  • Educators are permitted to exercise editorial control over school-sponsored expressive activities such as school publications or theatrical productions.
  • Public school administrators may take steps to safeguard students from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.
  • A student may be disciplined for expressive conduct occurring off school grounds when such conduct would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment, at least to the extent that it was similarly foreseeable that such off-campus expression might also reach campus.
  • A school may regulate in the classroom “plainly offensive” speech, i.e., speech that is offensively lewd and indecent.
  • Off-campus, the risk from student speech of substantial disruption within the school environment depends on a number of factors including the language used, the truth or falsity of the communication, and whether the student serves as a student government leader.
  • Participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege and not a right.
Students Should Presume:
  • That any electronic communication (e.g., text, tweet, email) or creation (e.g., MySpace profile) that can be forwarded beyond its initial addressee may be forwarded to parties unknown, or may be seen by teachers or school administrators. Electronic communication (i.e., one relating or referring to students, teachers, administrators, or school activities) can be expected to find its way “on-campus.” Going forward, with respect to electronic communications, students should presume no practical or legal difference between on and off-campus.
  • What constitutes “substantial disruption within the school environment” depends entirely on the circumstances. Virtually any deviation from the daily routine resulting from a student communication can be described as “disruption” sufficient to support student discipline.
The Bottom Line

Any off-campus electronic communication relating or referring to students, teachers, administrators, or school activities has the potential to result in student discipline. As of now, the unsettled status of the law affords school administrators wide latitude in deciding when a student communication can be reasonably seen to create a foreseeable risk of academic disruption. Exclusion from extracurricular activities is now a judicially accepted punishment. Other types of student discipline may in the future also be countenanced by the courts. In the meantime, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Our education law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

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 attorneys at our office at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients.

Your Child’s Attendance Requirements

The following will provide you with the pertinent laws and procedures regarding your child’s attendance at school. The first part of this section will describe the mandatory attendance requirements that the State of Connecticut requires students to adhere to and potential penalties if your child fails to meet these requirements. The second part of this section will provide you with basic information regarding how your child’s residency plays a role in where they may attend school. This section will further describe available hearing procedures if your child is determined to be an ineligible resident.

If there are any issues that may arise between yourself and the school district regarding your child’s school attendance or a dispute pertaining to the residency status of your child, please contact one of our attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C.

Attendance

As a parent, you are responsible for ensuring that your child is regularly attending school. Attendance is basic to your child’s ability to obtain a proper education. Much of what your child learns is presented to them in the classroom setting. Your child’s daily attendance will expose them to other learning processes that will help them in continuing to grow and learn. Connecticut law states, “parents and those who have the care of children shall bring them up in some lawful and honest employment and instruct them or cause them to be instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar, geography, arithmetic and United States history and in citizenship, including the study of the town, state and federal governments.”

If your child is over the age of five (5) and under the age of eighteen (18) you must ensure that he or she attends public school regularly during the normal operating hours of the school district in which your child resides. If your child is a high school graduate or as a parent you are able to demonstrate that your child is receiving instruction in the appropriate studies equivalent to that taught in public school (e.g. homeschooling, private school) then your child will be excused from this mandatory attendance requirement. Please note, that if your child attends private school there are certain attendance requirements that will be discussed in further detail below.

Is my child permitted to withdraw from attending school?

As of July 1, 2011, and each school year thereafter, a parent or other person having control of a child who is at least seventeen (17) years of age, may consent to their child’s withdrawal from attending school. As a parent you must personally appear at your child’s school district’s office and sign a withdrawal form. The withdrawal form must also be signed by a guidance counselor or school administrator who is employed by your child’s school district indicating that you, the parent, were provided with information regarding educational options available in your child’s school system and the community.

If your child has voluntarily terminated his or her enrollment in school with your consent and subsequently seeks readmission, the board of education of your child’s school district may deny school accommodations to your child for up to ninety (90) school days following your child’s withdrawal, unless, your child seeks to be readmitted within ten (10) school days after his or her withdrawal. In this case, the school board must readmit your child within three (3) school days.

What is the maximum age at which I must enroll my child in school?

A parent has the option to exempt a child from attending school until the age of seven (7) provided the parent appears at the child’s school district’s office and sign an option to exempt form. The school district must provide you with information regarding the educational opportunities that would be available to your child if you were to enroll him or her in public school as early as the age of five (5). An option form must be signed for each year you decide not to enroll a child below the age of seven (7) in public school.

Is there a penalty for failing to comply with the mandatory attendance requirements?

Failure as a parent to comply with the requirement that your child attend public school (absent alternative means of instruction) is a violation of law. If your child fails to attend school as required you are subject to a fine not to exceed twenty-five (25) dollars per day. A penalty will not be imposed if it appears that your child is destitute of clothing suitable for attending school and as a parent you are unable to provide proper clothing for your child to attend school.

Am I responsible for the mandatory attendance requirements if my child attends private school?

As a parent you are still required to comply with the mandatory attendance laws set forth above if your child attends private school. Private schools must submit school attendance reports to the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner of Education provides teachers and other school personnel at your child’s private school with the forms needed to establish compliance with the mandatory attendance provisions. If your child’s attendance reports are not satisfactory, a complaint may be filed in the Connecticut Superior Court by the superintendent of the school district in which you and your child reside.

What is a truant?

Your child may, on occasion, be excused from school for good reason, such as illness, where a written notice from your child’s doctor should be provided to the child’s school. Unexcused absences may violate the mandatory attendance laws.

Connecticut law defines a “truant” as a child age five (5) to eighteen (18) who is enrolled in public or private school and has four (4) unexcused absences from school in any one month or ten (10) unexcused absences from school in any one year. A “habitual truant” is a child between the ages of five (5) and eighteen (18) who is enrolled in private or public school and has twenty (20) unexcused absences within one school year. Cities and towns may adopt their own ordinances concerning children who are found on the streets or in other public places during school hours. The police may detain your child and return the child to school if he or she is found to be a habitual truant.

What are the policies and procedures my child’s school may adopt concerning truancy?

Your local board of education must adopt and implement policies and procedures concerning truants, which must include:

  • The holding of a meeting with you and your truant child and appropriate school personnel to review and evaluate the reasons for your child’s truancy, provided such meeting is held no later than ten (10) school days after your child’s fourth unexcused absence in any month or tenth unexcused absence in a school year.
  • Coordinating services with referrals of children to community agencies providing child and family services.
  • Notifying you annually at the beginning of the school year and upon any enrollment during the school year, as a parent having control of a child enrolled in a public school grade from kindergarten to eight, in writing of the obligations you have as a parent.
  • Obtaining from you annually at the beginning of the school year and upon any enrollment during the school year, as a parent of a child in a grade from kindergarten to eight, a telephone number or other means of contact.
  • A system of monitoring individual unexcused absences of children in grades kindergarten to eight, ensuring that whenever a child fails to report to school on a regularly scheduled school day and no indication has been received by school personnel that you, the parent, are aware of his or her absence, that a reasonable effort is made by school personnel or volunteers under the direction of school personnel to notify you, by telephone.
What if as a parent or guardian I fail to comply with the school policies and procedures regarding truancy?

If a parent fails to attend a truancy meeting regarding your child’s truant status or cooperate with the school to attempt to solve he truancy problem, then the superintendent of your school district must file a written complaint with the Connecticut Superior Court.

The board of education overseeing your child’s school may appoint an individual or group of individuals authorized to prosecute violations of school attendance laws. The appointee is authorized to investigate the absence or irregular attendance of your child, to cause your child to attend school regularly if they are absent or irregularly in attendance and prosecute cases for violation of the mandatory attendance laws. These appointees will report their findings to your child’s school principal or superintendent, who based on these findings, may be required to file a written complaint in Connecticut Superior Court.

Our education law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

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 attorneys at our office at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com. We offer free consultations to all new clients.

How NCLB Implements its Goals

NCLB Goals

One of the stated goals of NCLB is that every child is able to read by the end of third grade. To this end, the Federal government invested in scientifically based reading instruction programs to be implemented in the early grades. An expected collateral benefit of this initiative is reduced identification of children requiring special education services resulting from a lack of appropriate reading instruction.

NCLB funds screening and diagnostic assessments to identify K-3 students who are at risk of reading failure, and to better equip K-3 teachers in the essential components of reading instruction. Funds are also available to support early language, literacy, and pre-reading development of pre-school-age children.

In keeping with its major themes of accountability, choice, and flexibility, NCLB also emphasizes the use of practices grounded in scientifically based research to prepare, train, and recruit high-quality teachers. Once again, local school administrators are afforded significant flexibility in teacher staffing, provided they can demonstrate annual progress in maintaining and enhancing the high quality of their teachers.

Finally, in an effort to ensure safe and drug-free schools, NCLB, as proposed, requires states to allow students who attend a persistently dangerous school, or who have been victims of violent crime at school, to transfer to a safe school. To facilitate characterizing schools as “safe” or “not safe,” NCLB requires public disclosure of school safety statistics on a school-by-school basis. In addition, school administrators must use federal funding to implement demonstrably effective drug and violence prevention programs.

It is within this overarching educational framework of NCLB that the State of Connecticut oversees and administers its constitutional and statutory obligations to educate your children.

Our education law firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

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 attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation.

NCLB: Schools Must Continue to Make Progress

What happens if a school declines in standardized testing? Schools and school districts that fail to make “adequate yearly progress” are subject to corrective action and restructuring. Adequate yearly progress means, for example, that each year a school’s fourth graders score higher on standardized tests than the previous year’s fourth graders.

Once a school has been identified under NCLB as requiring improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, local school officials must afford its students the opportunity (and transportation, if needed) to attend a better public school within the same school district. Low-income students attending a “persistently failing school” (i.e., one failing to meet state standards for 3 out of the 4 preceding years) are eligible for funding to obtain supplemental educational services from either public or private schools selected by the student and his parents.

Under-performing schools are highly incentivized to improve if they wish to avoid further loss of students (and an accompanying loss of funding). A school that fails to make adequate yearly progress for five consecutive years is subject to reconstitution under a restructuring plan.

Simply stated, NCLB provides states and school districts unprecedented flexibility in their use of federal funds in return for more stringent accountability for increased teacher quality and improved student results.

Written By: Joseph Maya 2013

Our education law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with expulsion, discrimination, and general education law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best education law attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut or New York education issues today.

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 law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation.