Good School Administration: Educational Law - Report Example

The questions I asked the principal to answer were of two types. Some of them centered on questions that had firm legal standing, for example, I asked questions about students with exceptionalities, dealing with the teacher’s union and access to school records. Answers to these questions need to be firmly rooted in established case law. Other questions were more questions of school management and policy. For example, how a principle chooses to utilize a School Advisory Committee isn’t necessarily established in case law, but a principle needs to be aware that the establishment of a policy or rules that guide the use of such a committee need to be guided by established educational law. When reflecting upon the answers given by the principal, the first answer I received that I knew had very real legal implications concerned students with exceptionalities. I asked how these students were accommodated in the school and the principal responded that they followed the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) because it was the law. An IEP is a legally binding document that identifies the student’s disability and lists the accommodations that the student needs in order to receive the most from his or her education. The origins of creating an IEP can be traced to early court cases such as Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia. This ruling from the court said that children labeled as mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed had rights to due process. In many cases, these students were locked away from the general student population. The ruling in Mills said that this practice needed to stop. Strengthening this decision was the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) legislation in 1990 and 1997. This legislation broadened who could be labeled as disabled and how schools needed to accommodate these students. An IEP was made necessary for any student diagnosed with exceptional learning issues. Other practices such as educating these children in the least restrictive environment as part of providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) were also established in this law. Disciplining students with an IEP is also an important legal area for an administrator to understand. The principal said that the school needed to follow the IEP when doing this as well. I think what was being referred to is the decision in Honig v. Doe that stated that students with an IEP cannot be disciplined indiscriminately for misbehavior that results from their disability. Students with an IEP can only be suspended for ten days. Within ten days, the IEP team needs to meet to discuss the situation. The student’s placement can be changed if all parties agree, or if the disruption involved a weapon. Administrators need to be aware of laws concerning the accommodation and disciplining of exceptional students. Another answer I found interesting was the principal’s response concerning administration’s relationship with the teacher’s union. The principal was answering from a unique perspective because of past experience as an active union member in the teacher’s union. As principal, this perspective was mentioned as being a good tool form managing relations with the union. The principal said that because the union and administration want the same things for teachers, namely for teachers to be treated fairly and with respect, there really hasn’t been in friction between the two. The greatest understanding an administrator needs to have about working with the teacher’s union from a legal perspective is to recognize the teacher’s legal ability to enter into collective bargaining agreements. Norwalk Teachers Association v. Board of Education of City of Norwalk established this rule. Collective bargaining brings certain privileges to teachers and unions. The principal needs to be aware of the legally negotiated settlement that has been agreed upon between the union representatives and the administration or school board. In some states, union members have the right to demand union representation if they feel they are in a meeting with administration that will end in some sort of formal punishment. The principal I interviewed didn’t have these sorts of concerns, but many administrators do. Being aware of how to legally handle proper relations with union members in important. The principal’s answer to the question about giving a non-recommendation to a teacher was one that hinted at having a legal aspect. The principal said that a non-recommendation was given once because a teacher was not attending to her professional duties. The principal said that this was a “long process” and that it concerned “due process”. Reflecting on this answer, I realize that the principal understood my answer to mean terminating a teacher. As the principal said, this is a long process because the administration must prove “good cause” or “just cause” for their decision. A “just cause” decision takes place when a teacher breaks a rule that is explicitly outlined in the tenure agreement. For example, if the tenure agreement specifically identifies Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) convictions as punishable by dismissal, then the due process is simply the procedures for dismissal and appeal as outlined by the school board. If the causes for dismissal are vague, then the administrator must build a case for “good cause”. I think this is what the principal I interviewed was referring to when “due process” and a long time period of investigation was referred to. Another area guided by law is the rights teachers have to speak out on controversial issues. The administrator limited her response to controversial speech within the classroom. The litmus test for the principal seemed to be whether the controversial speech dealt with the course curriculum or not. She offered the example of discussion religion and religious beliefs openly in the context of a world cultures class as being appropriate, even though many consider the discussion of religion in school a controversial subject. The principal feels that any speech that is not related to the curriculum, whether it is appropriate or controversial, should not happen because it is off topic. The principal did not specifically mention teachers speaking out on controversial subjects in the community. This right has been confirmed in the Pickering v. Board of Education ruling. In this case, a teacher wrote a letter to the local newspaper critical of the taxes and budget proposed by the school board. He was fired for writing the letter. The court later ruled that he did have the right to write the letter because he was writing not as a teacher, but as a member of the community. Teachers do not surrender all of their rights relative to speech just because they are teachers. Reporting child abuse was another topic discussed with this principal. An important part of reporting child abuse in most states (49 of 50) is that teachers are required to report suspicions of child abuse. The principal stated that teachers had turned in no reports of child abuse so far this year. Teachers are instructed in how to handle suspicions of child abuse and neglect each year during a teacher in-service. This is very important legally. Some teachers may not feel comfortable reporting their suspicions of abuse for fear that they may get in trouble if the reports turn out to be false. Teachers have a limited form of immunity when they act as required reporters of abuse, as is shown in the Oregon case of McDonald v. State. In this case, parents tried to sue teachers that reported their son as abused. The reports turned out to be false, but the teachers were protected because they acted in good faith. Teachers also need to know that they can be held liable for failing to report suspicions of abuse. In this case, if it can be shown that the teachers and administrators were willfully negligent, then they can be sued for damages. I found the interview with the principal very interesting. I realize, looking back on the interview, that even though many of the answers given to my questions were brief, there were many laws and case studies that the administrator needed to know and understand in order to function efficiently and fairly as a principal. Much of a principal’s job seems to rub up against legal issues, so understanding educational law is vital for a good school administrator. Read More