Representative John Barnes, Jr. has introduced House Bill 116, or the "School Day Security and Anti-Bullying Act" for consideration by the Ohio House of Representatives. The proposed Act would require school districts to be more aggressive with their education efforts on anti-bullying policies.
Under current Ohio law, school districts are required to publish their bullying policy in the student handbook and include the policy in school employee training handbooks. Under this proposal, districts would be required to, twice in every school year, provide each student with age-appropriate instruction on the board's policies prohibiting harassment, intimidation, and bullying. The first instruction must be given toward the beginning of the school year and the second offered during the second semester. Additionally, the consequences for violations must be taught and an acknowledgment of receipt must be signed by the parent or guardian and returned to the school.
The bill does not change the definition of bullying under Ohio law, which defines that intimidation, harassment, or bullying as any of the following "(1) Any intentional written, verbal, or physical act that a student has exhibited toward another particular student more than once and the behavior both:
(a) Causes mental or physical harm to the other student;
(b) Is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student.
(2) Violence within a dating relationship." R.C. 3313.666
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Court upholds Board's decision to permanently revoke teacher's license
The Franklin County Court of Appeals this week upheld the State Board of Education's permanent revocation of a teacher's license.
In that case, two teachers had held a Christmas party in an area of a school buidling was not authorized to by the principal. Two students began boxing, with the knowledge of the teacher. One of the students was struck, was severely injured, and nearly died. The two teachers then allegedly concocted a story that they thought would keep them out of trouble. The teachers allegedly told students to lie to the principal if asked.
The principal then began an investigation. He interviewed students who were present during the Christmas party. The students stuck to the teachers' allegedly concocted story. Later, however, one of the teachers confessed the true story. However, the other teacher stuck to the original story. Both teachers later resigned, and an investigator in the Department's Office of Professional Conduct, Kelly Beall, was assigned to investigate the matter. As a result of Beall's investigation, the Board issued the teacher a notice of its intent to determine whether to limit, suspend, or revoke his teaching license.
Pursuant to R.C. 119.07, the State Board of Education must hold a hearing if a party requests it within 30 days of the mailing of a notice of intent. The notice of intent informed the teacher of his right to request a hearing, and it warned the teacher that if he did not exercise this right, the Board could suspend, limit, or revoke his teaching license in his absence.
After the hearing, the hearing officer determined that the inadequate supervision of students, among other things, amounted to conduct unbecoming to the teacher's position, and that the Board had grounds to sanction the teacher under R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) and Ohio Adm. Code 3301-73-22. The hearing examiner recommended that the Board revoke the teacher's teaching license and render him permanently ineligible to apply for any license issued by the Board. The Board adopted the hearing officer's recommendation. The teacher then appealed both to the Court of Common Pleas, and to the appeals court, both of which upheld the revocation.
In that case, two teachers had held a Christmas party in an area of a school buidling was not authorized to by the principal. Two students began boxing, with the knowledge of the teacher. One of the students was struck, was severely injured, and nearly died. The two teachers then allegedly concocted a story that they thought would keep them out of trouble. The teachers allegedly told students to lie to the principal if asked.
The principal then began an investigation. He interviewed students who were present during the Christmas party. The students stuck to the teachers' allegedly concocted story. Later, however, one of the teachers confessed the true story. However, the other teacher stuck to the original story. Both teachers later resigned, and an investigator in the Department's Office of Professional Conduct, Kelly Beall, was assigned to investigate the matter. As a result of Beall's investigation, the Board issued the teacher a notice of its intent to determine whether to limit, suspend, or revoke his teaching license.
Pursuant to R.C. 119.07, the State Board of Education must hold a hearing if a party requests it within 30 days of the mailing of a notice of intent. The notice of intent informed the teacher of his right to request a hearing, and it warned the teacher that if he did not exercise this right, the Board could suspend, limit, or revoke his teaching license in his absence.
After the hearing, the hearing officer determined that the inadequate supervision of students, among other things, amounted to conduct unbecoming to the teacher's position, and that the Board had grounds to sanction the teacher under R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) and Ohio Adm. Code 3301-73-22. The hearing examiner recommended that the Board revoke the teacher's teaching license and render him permanently ineligible to apply for any license issued by the Board. The Board adopted the hearing officer's recommendation. The teacher then appealed both to the Court of Common Pleas, and to the appeals court, both of which upheld the revocation.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Ohio school district to require students to undergo breathalyzer before entering school dance. Is it constitutional?
The Columbus Dispatch today is reporting that students at Medina High School, in Medina, Ohio, will have to take a breathalzyer test before attending the school's sweatheart dance. http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/27/27-Ohio-school-requires-breathalyzer-test-at-dances.html?sid=101
The new rule takes effect as a result of two students showing up drunk to the school's homecoming dance.
But is the school district permitted to take such a step under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe. Almost thirty years ago, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion that school boards may administer breath tests when students are suspected of having consumed alcoholic beverages. The board has to have found that such rules and regulations are ncessary to the effective management of their schools. 1983 OAG No. 012.
Nonetheless, such a policy must still conform to constitutional mandates, no matter what the Attorney General believes. If a particular student is reasonably believed to be under the influence, there seems to be not much doubt that a student could be required to undergo a breathalyzer. The odor of alcohol and impaired behavior may be enough to reach the "reasonable" standard in this context. See e.g. Martinez v. School Dist. No. 60, 852 P.2d
The more difficult question is can the test be required to ALL students before entering the school dance. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld random, suspicionless drug testing of all students engaged in competitive extracurricular activities. However, courts generally require such testing policies set forth adequate safeguards to ensure reliability, privacy during testing, and confidentiality of results. See e.g. Crager v. Bd. of Educ., 313 F. Supp. 2d 690 (6th Cir. 2004). It seems likely that the breath-testing will be done in front of a number of people, including other students, and that the results will not remain private (students would be denied admission at the door). Furthermore, since high school students are not allowed to legally consume alcohol, the threat of prosecution may face those who test positive. However, the argument exists that extracurricular activities like school dances are voluntary affairs, and that the student's interests to be free from search and seizure are diminished.
In the end, there is no clear answer as to whether or not all students can be forced to undergo breath tests before entering the school dance. On a whole, when viewed in light of existing precedent, the case law seems to be on the side of the school district.
The new rule takes effect as a result of two students showing up drunk to the school's homecoming dance.
But is the school district permitted to take such a step under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe. Almost thirty years ago, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion that school boards may administer breath tests when students are suspected of having consumed alcoholic beverages. The board has to have found that such rules and regulations are ncessary to the effective management of their schools. 1983 OAG No. 012.
Nonetheless, such a policy must still conform to constitutional mandates, no matter what the Attorney General believes. If a particular student is reasonably believed to be under the influence, there seems to be not much doubt that a student could be required to undergo a breathalyzer. The odor of alcohol and impaired behavior may be enough to reach the "reasonable" standard in this context. See e.g. Martinez v. School Dist. No. 60, 852 P.2d
The more difficult question is can the test be required to ALL students before entering the school dance. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld random, suspicionless drug testing of all students engaged in competitive extracurricular activities. However, courts generally require such testing policies set forth adequate safeguards to ensure reliability, privacy during testing, and confidentiality of results. See e.g. Crager v. Bd. of Educ., 313 F. Supp. 2d 690 (6th Cir. 2004). It seems likely that the breath-testing will be done in front of a number of people, including other students, and that the results will not remain private (students would be denied admission at the door). Furthermore, since high school students are not allowed to legally consume alcohol, the threat of prosecution may face those who test positive. However, the argument exists that extracurricular activities like school dances are voluntary affairs, and that the student's interests to be free from search and seizure are diminished.
In the end, there is no clear answer as to whether or not all students can be forced to undergo breath tests before entering the school dance. On a whole, when viewed in light of existing precedent, the case law seems to be on the side of the school district.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Student search by school official constitutional even if tip came from law enforcement, appeals court rules
A divided Fifth District Court of Appeals held today that the search of a student for drugs was constitutional, even though the school official who searched the student was given the tip by a law enforcement officer.
In that case, an assistant principal was given a tip by a deputy sheriff stationed inside the school that a student in the school may have been dealing heroin. The assistant principal then requested that the student come to the office with his bookbag. The assistant principal and the deputy sheriff both testified that the school official did so at the school official's sole request, and not at the behest of the deputy sheriff. During the search, drugs were found and the student was subsequently prosecuted.
The legal question to be answered by the court was what standard was required to justify the search. Generally, school officials can conduct searches when they believe that school rules and regulations have been violated, so long as the search is reasonable under the circumstances. This is a much more relaxed standard than the probable cause standard, which is generally required to conduct most searches.
The student had argued that, because the search was initiated as a result of the law enforcement officer tipping off the assistant principal, the probable cause standard should control. However, the prosecution argued, and the trial court held, that because the school official was working independently, and not at the behest of, the law enforcement officer, the reasonableness standard should prevail.
The Court of Appeals, 2-1, agreed with the trial court that the lower "reasonableness" standard should control. Because, in its opinion, the search was reasonable under the circumstances, the search of the student was constitutional.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals handles cases from Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas Counties.
In that case, an assistant principal was given a tip by a deputy sheriff stationed inside the school that a student in the school may have been dealing heroin. The assistant principal then requested that the student come to the office with his bookbag. The assistant principal and the deputy sheriff both testified that the school official did so at the school official's sole request, and not at the behest of the deputy sheriff. During the search, drugs were found and the student was subsequently prosecuted.
The legal question to be answered by the court was what standard was required to justify the search. Generally, school officials can conduct searches when they believe that school rules and regulations have been violated, so long as the search is reasonable under the circumstances. This is a much more relaxed standard than the probable cause standard, which is generally required to conduct most searches.
The student had argued that, because the search was initiated as a result of the law enforcement officer tipping off the assistant principal, the probable cause standard should control. However, the prosecution argued, and the trial court held, that because the school official was working independently, and not at the behest of, the law enforcement officer, the reasonableness standard should prevail.
The Court of Appeals, 2-1, agreed with the trial court that the lower "reasonableness" standard should control. Because, in its opinion, the search was reasonable under the circumstances, the search of the student was constitutional.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals handles cases from Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas Counties.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Jury convicts woman accused of enrolling children in wrong district
The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting that a woman accused of enrolling her children in the wrong school district has been convicted of tampering with records, in violation of ORC 2913.42, a felony of the third degree. http://www.ohio.com/news/113828954.html. In what may be an unprecedented case brought by prosecutors, the woman could face five years in prison.
At the center of the case, prosecutors allege, was that the mother falsified official school registration forms to enroll her children in the Fairborn school district, even though she lived in city of Akron. Prosecutors also alleged that the woman was using her father's address in the scheme.
Prosecutors also had brought grand theft charges against the woman, saying she owed the District in excess of $30,000 for two years education in the District. The jury was unable to come to a verdict on those charges and a mistrial was declared on those charges.
At the center of the case, prosecutors allege, was that the mother falsified official school registration forms to enroll her children in the Fairborn school district, even though she lived in city of Akron. Prosecutors also alleged that the woman was using her father's address in the scheme.
Prosecutors also had brought grand theft charges against the woman, saying she owed the District in excess of $30,000 for two years education in the District. The jury was unable to come to a verdict on those charges and a mistrial was declared on those charges.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
School Board terminates teacher's contract, adopts referee's recommendation
The Mount Vernon School Board of Education voted this week to terminate the contract of a teacher accused of, among other things, violating school board policies, violating the U.S. Constitution, and teaching Christianity in class. In their 4-1 vote, the school board adopted the decision of the "referee" or hearing officer.
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 3319.16, public school teachers employed pursuant to a contract may only have that contract terminated for "good and just cause." Before such termination may take place, however, the school board has to give the teacher notice of intention, and an opportunity for a hearing in front of either the board, or a referee. Both parties may be present at such hearing, be represented by counsel, subpoena witnesses, require witnesses to be under oath, cross-examine witnesses, take a record of the proceedings. The referee must then furnish her report, recommending a termination or not. The board must then vote to adopt the report and recommendation or to reject it by majority vote.
The teacher affected then has the opportunity to appeal the case to the court of common pleas in which the school is located.
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 3319.16, public school teachers employed pursuant to a contract may only have that contract terminated for "good and just cause." Before such termination may take place, however, the school board has to give the teacher notice of intention, and an opportunity for a hearing in front of either the board, or a referee. Both parties may be present at such hearing, be represented by counsel, subpoena witnesses, require witnesses to be under oath, cross-examine witnesses, take a record of the proceedings. The referee must then furnish her report, recommending a termination or not. The board must then vote to adopt the report and recommendation or to reject it by majority vote.
The teacher affected then has the opportunity to appeal the case to the court of common pleas in which the school is located.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Driver of chartered bus covered under university's automobile insurance policy, Supreme Court rules
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that when an auto insurance policy issued to a university extends liability coverage to any person operating “with permission” a vehicle that is “owned, hired or borrowed” by the university, that language provides coverage for injuries resulting from a traffic accident in which a bus driver employed by a charter bus company was operating the company’s bus while it was under charter by the university.
This case deals with the tragic bus accident that killed and injured a number of members of the Bluffton University baseball team in March 2007 (as well as the bus driver and his wife). It is believed that the bus driver thought that he was in the carpool lane but really was on a highway exit ramp. The bus then plunged off the overpass onto the highway below.
The charter bus company has already paid $5 million, while the State of Georgia has paid $3 million. The court's ruling, which overturned the decision of the 3rd District Court of Appeals' decision, could mean an additional $21 million dollars for the victims and the victims' families.
This case deals with the tragic bus accident that killed and injured a number of members of the Bluffton University baseball team in March 2007 (as well as the bus driver and his wife). It is believed that the bus driver thought that he was in the carpool lane but really was on a highway exit ramp. The bus then plunged off the overpass onto the highway below.
The charter bus company has already paid $5 million, while the State of Georgia has paid $3 million. The court's ruling, which overturned the decision of the 3rd District Court of Appeals' decision, could mean an additional $21 million dollars for the victims and the victims' families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)