School Law Case Study -- The Twenty Dollar Bill

As a part of School Law course for my MSE in Educational Leadership from ASU, Professor Curtner had students work on several case studies. I personally found these quite interesting and meaningful as a tool for leadership development. The scenario was supplied to me by Professor Curtner, but the answer is my original content. I hope this will generate some discussion about exactly how to handle a situation like this one in a school setting.

Scenario: “The Twenty Dollar Bill”

Debbie Mason stood in the hallway facing Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Hall. In her 2 years as assistant principal of Ridgewood Elementary School, Debbie had found Mrs. Johnson to be a reasonable and effective teacher. However, right now Mrs. Johnson did not appear reasonable. In fact, she was obviously angry and had sought the aid of Mr. Hall, who was quickly working up to her level of indignation. Just to make sure everything was clear, Mrs. Johnson restated her position: “No one is leaving here until I find out who stole the money!” Debbie quickly learned that Rebecca Smith, a student in Mrs. Johnson’s third-grade class, had informed Mrs. Johnson that someone had taken $20 from her book bag. After some questioning, Mrs. Johnson discovered that the bag had remained in the classroom during recess and had been in the classroom unsupervised for 5 to 10 minutes. Mrs. Johnson had vainly searched desks, book bags, papers, and books. She was now determined to enlist Mr. Hall in a “bathroom search” of the students in the class. Something about the idea of a “bathroom search” made Debbie anxious, but Mrs. Johnson seemed absolutely determined to find the money. 

Answer:

Although it is easy to sympathize with Mrs. Johnson’s anger over the matter of the missing $20, she has placed the school in a difficult situation by searching book bags without individualized suspicion; any type of strip search will certainly be questioned by parents and will likely end up in court. Students do have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. The US Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey v. T.L.O. that teachers and administrators do not need to have a warrant in order to search a students’ belongings, but school officials must have a reasonable cause to conduct a search. The more intrusive the search, the higher the standard of reasonableness; therefore, a strip search requires a very high standard of reasonableness, because it is a complete invasion of personal privacy.

When it comes to matters of student and staff safety, the right to search a student’s belongings or body is much easier to defend. For example in Brousseau v. Town of Westerly, a pat-down of several middle school students leaving the cafeteria was ruled justified because school administrators had found a large knife was missing from the kitchen. The only time strip searches should be conducted is if there is a clear and immediate threat to health or safety of students or staff. The matter of the missing $20 is sad, but no student or faculty member’s life is in danger.

Under the given scenario, the bathroom searches are ill-advised. In Watkins v. Millennium School District, a strip search of three third grade students was considered unreasonable. Although at the time the money went missing, there were only three students in the room, the court felt that a strip search for $10 was a ridiculous over step on the part of the teacher. Even if Mrs. Johnson had been able to narrow down the suspects to one or two students, she would have found it difficult to be considered reasonable. Violating the privacy of several students in a hunt for $20 is beyond the legal rights of the school. Even the search of the student desks on this scale is questionable at best. A teacher or administrator must have more than a simple hunch or gut-feeling in order to search desks. Had Mrs. Johnson or a student witnessed the theft, then searches of desks and book bags could be considered reasonable.

Debbie Mason should get control of the situation before more damage is done. As the assistant principal, she should instruct Mrs. Johnson calm down and continue class immediately; Mr. Hall should return to his room as well. Mason should then explain that she will call students out one at a time and talk with them, but only the students who returned from recess early. She will get the names of the students who returned from recess early from Mrs. Johnson. Hopefully, with some gentle questioning and no screaming or threatening, some students will be able to supply information that will lead to finding the missing $20. 

If the money is not recovered, she should write a letter to the parents apologizing for the loss of the money, but pointing out the section of the student handbook that states that students should never leave money in lockers, desks, or book bags unattended. Money can always be left with the building secretary who will place it in the school safe. Without at least one student stating that they witnessed the theft or heard another student talking about the money, there isn’t much that can be done. The principal should be informed of the entire situation.

Assuming that a student did witness the theft or heard another student talking about the money, then the student seen with the money or heard talking about the money should be questioned (possibly for the second time). The student’s book bag and desk have been searched, so if the student has taken the money it is possibly on his/her body. At this point, the principal should be informed of the situation. The principal and assist principal should consult the student handbook and follow the procedure listed. The parents of the student should be contacted. Any type of intrusive search is difficult to defend in court, so it is very important to seek the cooperation of parents. The situation should be explained to the parents and they should be asked for permission to have the child empty his/her pockets and remove his/her shoes. If the parents refuse to grant permission, then the child should be sent back to class with no further action taken. If the parents grant permission, then the very limited search of the pockets and shoes should be conducted. 

School Law Case Study -- Bullets in the Mustang

This case study was part of my School Law course at ASU with Professor Curtner. Dr. Curtner provided the scenario and the solution is my original work.

“Bullets in the Mustang”

As part of her duties as school security officer, Samantha Jackson was making her usual morning rounds through the student parking lot. She stopped abruptly beside a restored 1966 Ford Mustang. Did she really see a bullet on the passenger seat? She shaded her eyes and looked again. This time she could make out two or three bullets on the seat and what could possibly be the very tip of a gun handle between the seats. Using her police band radio, she called in the license plate for registration and warrants. She immediately recognized the name and realized that the car was driven by Ricardo “Frisky Ricky” Bingham, the favorite son of a local minister. Ricky, a well-known school Romeo, had recently developed significant problems with attendance and grades. Rumor was that Ricky was seen riding with members of the “Deuce Six Posse” and had become involved with a secret drug ring on campus. Samantha called for an assistant principal, and after a brief explanation, asked him to find Ricky and meet her in the

parking lot. The assistant principal arrived with Ricky who was dressed in baggy designer jeans, an Oakland Raider NFL jersey, and a gold necklace with a small cobra charm. Samantha recognized the cobra charm as a Posse trademark. Samantha and the assistant principal opened the car door. Her pulse quickened as she gingerly pulled a loaded .38 caliber revolver from between the bucket seats of the Mustang. Ricky, looking surprised, would only say, “Don’t look at me. That’s not mine. I don’t know how it got there.”

My Solution:

After reviewing my school’s policies with regards to weapons and due process, I recommend that Ricky Bingham be turned over to the police. The search was conducted by the school security officer with probable cause -- she could clearly see several bullets on the seat inside the car and the tip of what appeared to be a gun. The bullets were in plain sight and a violation of school rules; in addition, the car was located on school property. A gun on school property represents an urgent threat to the safety of students and faculty and merits an immediate response. New Jersey v. T.L.O. established that the warrant requirements are unsuited to the school environment and even though a school security officer conducted the search, there was ample probable cause and individualized suspicion. The appropriate action at this point in the scenario is to call the police and turn the matter over to them. The school should call the parents of Ricky and inform them that he is being arrested. 

My school does not have a zero tolerance policy for weapons, but the student handbook clearly states that any student in possession of a weapon on campus will be punished with a suspension and possible expulsion. We would handle the matter by having a meeting with Ricky’s parents where we informed them that Ricky was on indefinite suspension until his court case. If Ricky is found not guilty by the court, once the court case is finished he is free to return to school, but we recommend that the parents voluntarily withdraw him. If Ricky is found guilty by the court, we would move for expulsion.

In Korea, firearms are not legal; therefore, the idea of bringing a loaded weapon to any school campus is a very serious legal matter. Our Business Officer Manager, Mr. Choi (a local hire Korean), explained that in this type of situation Ricky would receive at least five years in prison but probably more. Apparently, in the Korean legal system, judges are given a fair amount of leeway when sentencing convicted criminals and they have a tendency to be very concerned with matters of public safety.

Recently the Korean Ministry of Education has asked the congress to enact new legislation about school discipline procedures. In the past, teachers and administrators were allowed to physically beat students who “misbehave.” There was no recourse for these students, school officials were the law within schools and their authority was beyond questioning. Within the last ten years, the Korean government as written new laws abolishing the beating of students and instituting due process procedures loosely based on those in the US. The spread of actually following the new laws has been slow; Korea is a country based on Confucianism and tradition is a highly valued. Korean public and private schools must now follow due process when punishing students. I sincerely believe that these new laws are changing the educational system for the better. International schools within Korean are outside of the jurisdiction of the Korean Ministry of Education, but we often comply with rules they enact for Korean public and private schools out of respect; we are visitors in their country and complying with their laws shows we are good visitors. For the most part, the international schools have lead the way with regards to things like due process and abolishing corporal punishment. At my school, we have always had due process procedures in place; our parents are generally happy with the school discipline program according to surveys we have conducted for accreditation.

School Law Case Study: Senior Shirts

The following case study was used by my professor (Dr. Curtner) in my School Law course at ASU. I found it thought provoking and worth sharing with others. Enjoy!

“Senior Shirts”

This was Sharon Grey’s fifth year as principal of Riverboat High School, and she had to agree that this group of seniors had been a real challenge. The final straw occurred in February. During a snow break, several seniors loaded up in two or three cars and drove the 8 hours to New Orleans for Mardi Gras. Unfortunately, the local snowstorms quickly dissipated, and district schools reopened before the students returned. The fact that the school was in session had little impact on the dozen or so seniors in New Orleans, and they decided to stay for a few more days. Apparently, the parents of this group sent them more money and condoned their “senior trip” in spite of the fact that one of the young men managed to get arrested by the New Orleans police and charged with underage drinking. The group returned as heroes to the rest of their senior class and as villains to the staff. Sharon was bound by policy to mark their absences as unexcused, much to the dissatisfaction of several of the students’ parents. In spite of her best efforts, this issue developed into an emotional confrontation between several parents and the Board of Education, with hurt feelings on all sides. “Senior shirts” had been a long tradition at Riverboat High School. Each year the senior class designed a T-shirt, collected money from other seniors, and contracted with a local company to screen print shirts for the senior class. When Sharon first can to Riverboat High School, the shirts were relatively simple items, but they had become more complex and expensive over the past few years. Sharon sighed as she thought about this year’s shirt. The front of the shirt was simple enough. It read SENIORS 2011 and, in script, “The Best is Yet to Come.” However, on the back of the shirt was a purple, green, and gold Mardi Gras mask. Under the mask was the slogan “GOODBYE RHS: BURN IN HELL.” In the background Sharon could make out a figure, clearly female, tied to a cross with flames enveloping the lower torso.

My solution:

As the Supreme Court stated in Tinker, “students possess the same constitutional rights as adults and that these rights do not end at the schoolhouse door.” Students do have rights to free expression, but their rights are balanced by the schools need to maintain an orderly and safe environment to promote the educational process. With regards to freedom of expression the question should focus on whether or not the shirts create a material or substantial disruption to the educational process? It is clear that the entire school community is aware of the events that happened involving the seniors who skipped school and went to Mardi Gras, therefore, a shirt referencing the event calls attention to skipping school and reckless alcohol use. This shirt disrupts the educational process and certainly undermines the school’s authority. The Morse v. Frederick case can be used to justify banning the shirts from school because the message of the shirt is inconsistent with the school’s mission. 

In addition, Scott v. School Board of Alachua County established that schools can ban shirts with symbols on them, if the symbols are considered highly offensive. The image of a person burning on a cross could be understood as a reference to actions of the KKK. Although the school’s location wasn’t provided, it is located within driving distance of New Orleans and can be assumed to be in the Southern part of the US. A reference to the actions of the KKK would be highly offensive to minority students and parents; the administration could ban the shirts to protect students from possible violent confrontations that could arise from students being offended by the symbol of a person being burnt on a cross. Finally, the phrase “burn in hell” is certainly offensive language. In the case Bethel School District v. Fraser the court established that offensive language is not necessarily protected. Students are allowed to have controversial opinions, but that right must be balanced against the school’s interest in teaching appropriate behavior.

Principal Grey’s first action should be to get a photo of the front and back of the shirt and contact her school board and superintendent as soon as possible. Any action she ultimately takes needs the support of her superintendent and the school board, because there is a strong possibility that this will end up in court. Citing court cases like Morse v. Frederick, Scott v. School Board of Alachua County, and Bethel School District v. Fraser she should explain the need to ban the shirts from campus. Using the school’s student handbook, she should draft a document establishing the need to ban the shirt and the consequences for wearing the shirt on campus. In my school, administrators have the right to ban any offensive clothing. For violating the rule, students receive a warning for a first offense with a parent phone call; a detention and parent phone call for a second offense; an in-school suspension (up to three days) and a parental meeting for a third offense; an out of school suspension (up to three days) and a parental meeting for a fourth offense; a possible expulsion for a fifth offense. After contacting and explaining the situation thoroughly to the superintendent and school board, she should call a meeting with the senior class. Explaining very simply and calmly, she should inform the seniors that their shirts will be banned from campus and the consequences for violating the ban. Also, a written letter to the senior parents explaining the reasons for the ban and consequences for violating the ban should also be sent home immediately.