Search

The legal landscape has significantly impeded LGBTQ+ youth's rights at home and in schools. Learn about introduced and passed laws, the impact experienced by LGBTQ+ students, and how school psychologists can preserve LGBTQ+ mental health in these challenging times.

LGBTQIA students are an important stakeholder group on college and university campuses, especially as both their visibility and expectations for support and empowerment on campus increase. But how ready is the field of higher education for litigation related to LGBTQIA issues, and how should student affairs practitioners prepare to address LGBTQIA students' possible negative campus experiences proactively? By reviewing details of cases that have set an important precedent and signal what might be coming with respect to LGBTQIA students' rights and experiences in higher education, this article seeks to provide detail and analysis of important legal areas that student affairs practitioners should be attuned to as they continue to educate thousands of LGBTQIA students each year. I explore how Title IX may be increasingly a route of redress for LGBTQIA students who have experienced discrimination; how rulings on religious freedom of expression may erode some of LGBTQIA students' rights on college and universities campuses; and the special relationship doctrine and how it may be applied to LGBTQIA students in mental health crisis.

How do we ensure that all students have the tools and resources they need to succeed in today's educational context? In this article, we explore how the right to education generally and to specific educational tools and resources in California have been protected through litigation in the past; how the COVID-19 pandemic revealed technology-based educational inequities in our system that were previously unacknowledged; and, we propose strategies that educational leaders and legislators who seek to provide equality of educational opportunity may consider in the distribution of educational resources moving forward.

Electronic communication plays a significant role in most schools and in all of our personal lives as well. The legal question of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable electronic speech for students that is constructed and delivered totally off-campus on such platforms such as Snapchat, Tic Toc, Facebook or Meta, U-Tube, and regular email, to name just a few, begs the question of when school officials may intervene and penalize students for electronic communication? With electronic communication having such a significant role in schools, a new array of legal issues has surfaced for off-campus speech. The U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of "Tinker v. Des Moines" and subsequent cases clarified the various parameters of appropriate student speech on campus and when school officials may take corrective action to curtail that speech. The "Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L." decision by the Supreme Court in 2021 offers some limited guidance on how student off-campus electronic speech may be contemplated by school officials. How do prospective principal candidates view off-campus posts in light of the "Mahanoy" decision?

The growth of state laws creating private school vouchers and charter schools has mounting and alarming ramifications for students' rights, and those ramifications are shaped by a complex and shifting set of legal rules. This article explains the interplay between the increase of these school-choice programs, the U.S. Supreme Court's recent free-exercise decisions, long-standing antidiscrimination laws, and the now-tenuous applicability of those legal protections for choice students. It concludes by considering the political ramifications of these changes, which will likely be very different in "blue" and "red" states.

In "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization" (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent regarding the federal right to an abortion for people who can carry pregnancies. This case has substantial significance for the education field, directly affecting school- and college-age marginalized students who can carry pregnancies. In this essay, I argue that "Dobbs" and subsequent policies have created a significant need for educational research to inform courts, public policy, and practice to improve social and educational structural support for marginalized students who can carry pregnancies in a post-:"Dobbs" era. This need is because "Dobbs" and subsequent policies have significantly diminished reproductive justice, and reproductive justice is intricately tied to marginalized students' ability to fully engage in their education. Timely educational research is critical to address the systemic inequities that "Dobbs" and related policies have exacerbated and reified.

When education initiatives set out to help those who have been "historically disadvantaged or historically marginalized," they perfectly describe students with disabilities. Yet too often, these students have been excluded from conversations about equity in education. Congress opened public school doors for millions of children with disabilities through the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This law, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), not only guarantees the rights of students with disabilities to attend a public school but also promises a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Yet 46 years later, families and advocates are still fighting for its full implementation and enforcement. There is much progress to celebrate over the past 50 years, but the United States and its schools have far to go before equity is a reality for all students. In this article, Karla Phillips-Krivickas asserts that what began as an exercise in civil rights compliance decades ago must transform into a genuine commitment to prepare students of all abilities for college and careers. Deliberate, strategic leadership from state education leaders can ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are taken into account on every issue and in every policy decision.

Scholarship on the intersection between immigration, legal status, and education has grown over the past decade. Given that schools are intended to be purveyors of democratic values, schools represent an ideal context to examine how immigration and legal status are considered in a community that aims to support the academic and social success of all students This study investigates how members of an urban, K-12 school community in California addressed immigration issues over nearly a decade-long period. The study details three ways in which the school addressed immigration status issues across time. They include college-going supports, addressing newcomer/unaccompanied students' needs, and delivery of legal services. The study's implications highlight how K-12 schools can address immigration issues in intentional, ethical, and supportive ways.

Empirical data show that the COVID-19 pandemic deepened and exacerbated social inequalities, to the detriment of low-income communities of color. Using the law as a conceptual framework and legal research methodology, this study examines education law against the exacerbated social inequalities low-income students of color faced during the pandemic. Considering the bounds of the law against the exacerbated social inequalities surfaces the limitations of the law in a time of large-scale crisis and thereby exposes issues of educational inequity. In this context, policymakers bear the responsibility to adopt policies that promote educational equity. The study brings educational law and policy issues in the COVID-19 context to the fore of the educational equity discourse within the educational research community and has implications for policy and practice as well. The study is of import as educational researchers continue to examine the impact of COVID-19 across numerous social contexts and disciplines.

The problem is the widespread practice by many campuses in defining community membership in ways that deny their students the civil liberties and civil rights all other Americans are guaranteed. Thus, when forty-year old veterans enroll for even one part-time course, they may find that First and Fourteenth Amendment rights existing off campus no longer apply to them as students. They may seem to have joined a different nation with various sets of ambiguous rules. Some campuses place those sanctions not only on campus-based actions, but on social media comments made in the distant past as well. The reality is that there are more than 3,000 campuses in the United States. The efforts by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Speech First, and other organizations have been essential in establishing legal precedents and at least providing temporary relief to victims of speech suppression on various campuses. But the new judicial openness to holding campus authorities accountable through the imposition of personal damages offers an alternative to the "whack a mole" approach now used. In this article, George La Noue argues to create damage precedents, litigation will have to be more time consuming and expensive requiring attorney fees to be sought when cases are won. Extensive discovery and depositions with the creators of speech suppression policies will be necessary. Who drafted the policy and which administrators and board members reviewed it? What role did campus activists or outside groups play in policy design? Was legal counsel involved and what was their advice? Given that sort of record, a court can determine whether damages should be assessed, how much they should be, and who should pay them? When those sorts of precedents are established, more responsible speech policies consistent with constitutional rights in higher education nationwide will start to be seen.

Despite the potential instructional benefits of integrating devices such as cell phones into schools and classrooms, research reveals that their improper use can negatively impact student behaviour, learning, and well-being. This paper reviews the literature and litigation on cell phone use in schools due to controversies over cheating, cyberbullying, sexting, and searches of student cell phones. Recent studies suggested that the presence of cell phones and related technologies in classrooms could detract from students' academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyberbullying. The growing prevalence of cyberbullying is especially concerning because it can have severely negative, even tragic, effects on student mental health and safety. However, given the relatively discreet nature of cell phone use, regulations about their use can be difficult to enforce. After reviewing literature and litigation on the potential risks associated with inappropriate cell phone use in schools, this paper offers suggestions for educators to consider when devising or revising policies balancing students' individual rights with their safety and well-being before ending with a brief conclusion.

This case presented in this article involves a transgender middle school student-athlete (BPJ) and the West Virginia State Board of Education (WVSSAC). BPJ, who at the time was preparing to enter sixth grade at a new school, alleges that Defendants Burch, Stutler, the WVSSAC, and Attorney General Morrisey deprived her of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim goes on to indicate that the WVSSAC and Harrison County Board of Education are complicit in violating Title IX.

In this article, I detail how I revised a social foundations of education course to center major Supreme Court cases relating to K-12 public schools. Scholars in social foundations of education have articulated a vision for the field that fosters and promotes democracy and democratic dispositions. Focusing on the Supreme Court in a social foundations of education course is the result of two factors. First is the Supreme Court's storied role in shaping K-12 public education. Second is the Supreme Court's increasingly steep lurch toward antidemocratic jurisprudence, which many legal scholars and journalists covering the judicial branch are raising alarm over. Specifically, I paired 10 consequential Supreme Court cases relating to K-12 education identified by education lawyer Robert Kim with young adult literature. I demonstrate how and why I used young adult literature to illuminate how the law impacts the "lives of ordinary people," especially people within schools.

This research examines the gap between federal and state legal standards and policies related to educational provision for school-age youth detained in the United States, and secondary evidence documenting the educational services that are provided to unaccompanied im/migrant children in federal custody. The educational provision for unaccompanied youth in detention is both defined as a human right and mandated by federal and state law. But, in spite of legislation and policies at the international, national, and state levels, the implementation of education is inconsistent for unaccompanied children in US federal custody at shelters and care facilities nationwide. More specifically, ample evidence suggests there is no system of educational accountability for education provided to unaccompanied minors and other im/migrant children in federal custody at these detention centers, shelters, and care facilities.

Background/Context: In the 1973 "Rodriguez" decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not guarantee a substantive federal right to education. So far, this holding has not been adequately contextualized with many other statements the Court has made concerning the nature of education in the constitutional order. For example, since the 1969 "Tinker" decision, the Court has repeatedly justified curtailing student free speech by appealing to important educational goods, but the necessity of providing these educational goods has not been harmonized with the Court's denial of a federal right to education. Purpose/Objective/Research Question or Focus of Study: Is the Court's denial of a constitutional right to education consistent with how education is formulated in the Court's other decisions related to education, particularly as found in the student speech cases? Research Design: A "holistic analysis" is employed to examine the Supreme Court decisions related to education. This approach interprets the different strands of the Court's decisions related to education in light of one another (a "dialogic task") and places the Court's decisions into a larger context of educational thought (a "contextual task"). Specifically, with respect to the dialogic task, the focus is on reading the Court's decisions related to a federal right to education in light of its jurisprudence related to student speech; with respect to the contextual task, the focus is on clarifying the Court's statements related to educational goods by putting them into context with educational philosophy and theory. Conclusions/Recommendations: The holistic analysis leads to three observations. First, the authors find that the Supreme Court has endorsed a range of goods associated with education, including both public and private goods. Second, the Court has framed these educational goods as being closely associated with constitutional norms and the democratic order. Third, in the student speech cases, the Court has argued that these public and private educational goods are so critical that they justify the curtailment of student speech rights under the First Amendment. Bringing these observations together, it is concluded that, because education is being linked to constitutionally relevant private individual goods, and because the attainment of those goods is critical enough to overcome student speech rights, then the attainment of those goods should itself be considered a substantive, individual, constitutional right.

On March 29, 2021, the Religious Exemption Accountability Project filed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of 33 sexual and gender minority students who reported discrimination at institutions that have a Title IX religious' exemption. Of the 25 institutions named in the suit, 14 have accredited social work programs. This litigation highlights the importance of a professional discussion about implicit curriculum, regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion of LGBTQ+ students in programs at institutions with Title IX exemptions. Utilizing the Code of Ethics and the ethical principles of the International Federation of Social Workers, the author provides recommendations for accountability and support for social work programs based in these exempt schools.

The United States Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. held that a local school district violated the First Amendment freedom of religious expression rights when it directed an assistant football coach to stop praying on the fifty-yard line of a high school football field after each game. In finding for the high-school football coach, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the use of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution to limit workplace religious activities of public-school teachers, school administrators, and other school district employes. The article argues that the decision will force school districts across the country to reassess their policies regarding the workplace religious activities of their employes including teachers. The article examines how the decision will impact school districts' regulation of workplace prayers by public school teachers and several types of symbolic religious speech. Finally, the article argues that school districts may need to update their policies and practices governing the workplace religious activities of their employes including teachers.

Counselor education has moved firmly into the online space with multiple accredited programs available to students and potential faculty. These programs can cross state lines, either by location of training, placement of faculty, or both. As such, there are legal and ethical considerations that are outside of those that are typically considered. This article addresses some of the more common legal and ethical considerations in counselor education, such as vicarious liability and cybersecurity, and how they differ in the online education environment. Licensure and other laws and obligations for educators are explored. Opportunities for gatekeeping are discussed through the lens of a case study. A second case study with guiding questions is provided to raise visibility of state differences in practice laws. Finally, helpful resources for navigating online counselor education from a legal and ethical perspective are offered.

This article is a discussion of the role of the University Counsel (sometimes called the General Counsel) as "adviser, officer, administrator, and agent" in the university setting. The article discusses the nature of the "fiduciary duty" in university governance and describes several of the substantive areas of the law with which the University Counsel must become familiar: faculty employment and tenure discussions; share governance; sponsored research; student rights; and the many issues relating to college athletics.

Libraries still stand as a source of knowledge that can guide us to make informed decisions through the use of credible sources. A balanced collection that provides access to all points of view empowers a community to use information responsibly and make decisions independently. Intellectual freedom and equity of access are still important issues today, especially when confronting uncertain times with the COVID-19 virus and distance education. Through education and the information found in libraries, democracy allows citizens to experience free speech through dialogue not diatribe and to support our opinions with a respect for the diversity of our fellow citizens and a desire to realize equity and justice. From physical access to material selection to policies dealing with challenges to privacy of patron information, the article argues that school librarians must demonstrate intellectual freedom to maintain a free and open forum for ideas. They should be protectors of intellectual freedom for minors just as public libraries protect the rights of all citizens regardless of age.

"Castañeda v. Pickard" (648 F.2d 989, [5th Cir. 1981]) was a significant legal case in the history of educational policy for non-native English-speaking students in the United States. The case established a three prong 'test' for programs for those students, including the right for students to have an educational program based on sound educational theory; resources and personnel to properly implement the program; and evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. After 40 years of interpretation of the "Castañeda" case, the issue of language rights for non-native English speakers in United States public schools continues to be debated by scholars and interpreted through various legal statutes and case holdings. This article examines the "Castañeda" case and its recent interpretations in the literature as applied to non-native English-speaking students. We use a theoretical lens of orientations in language planning (Ruíz 1984) and language policy text as reported by Lo Bianco and Aliani (Language planning and student experiences: Intention, rhetoric, and implementation, Multilingual Matters, 2013). We then discuss the socio-historical context of the case and position it with respect to the 1974 seminal case of "Lau v. Nichols." Using the state of Florida as an example, we next describe the complex language ecology of local and state language policies and how those relate to "Castañeda" and inhibit progress for bilingual students in Florida. We conclude with caution to academics and advocates who work on behalf of language minoritized students in the United States, with implications for international scholars.

Background: Over the past decade, courts increasingly have considered cases that involve clashes between public, secular private, and religious institutions in education. Such clashes appear to have intensified as recently as the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term, and the confirmation of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Court in 2020 suggests that issues centered on these institutions will continue to receive significant judicial attention. While these recent cases have focused on a range of education law and policy issues, some have focused on arguably the most fundamental legal issues applicable to such schools--the instances in which the legal distinctions between public, secular private, and religious schools are strong or weak. Purpose: This study examines three recent, major federal cases as both historical and legal cases to highlight the restructuring of the distinctions among public, secular private, and religions schools in the institutional setting of the courts. I examine how the courts have historically structured these distinctions; how these three recent cases have restructured these distinctions; and the education law and policy implications moving forward. Research Design: This article is a legal analysis and historical case study. Findings: Three recent and high-profile education cases reflect a spectrum of how the highest courts have restructured distinctions between public, secular private, and religious schools in a short period. In some instances, courts have blurred the legal distinctions between these types of schools by allowing religious schools to receive governmental support even in situations in which states have directly attempted to exclude institutions like them from receiving such support. In other instances, courts have strengthened these distinctions by differentiating how public, secular private, and religious schools are treated with respect to their abilities to discriminate. Conclusion: Taken together, the three cases underscore the intensifying attention of the courts to restructuring the distinctions between the public, secular private, and religious spheres in education. These distinctions reflect judicial engagement with major educational and political goals, such as pluralism, communality, and discrimination, and are grounded in a long history of courts' involvement in this field. Especially in a field characterized by highly politicized debates, attention to the distinction between the public, secular private, and religious spheres in education is critical for understanding how and why fundamental educational policy decisions have been and continue to be made.

The freedom of conscience and belief can be defined as the freedom of people in what they wish to believe without the compulsion of political power and other people by means of laws and other means. The belief of religion that can be accepted as the natural extension of the freedom of conscience and belief is to be free in doing the requirements of the religion that the people believe in with its rituals. While it is not possible and effective to make restrictions in freedom of belief, today, there are some restrictions in some judicial systems in freedom of worship. With the principle of secularism which is settled among the principles that the alteration of which are not even be proposed, there have been some different decisions about the administrative acts that cause the violation of belief and worship freedom in the implementation of the right of education which is secured with Constitutional Law in Turkish Constitution. In this study, the effects of the incompatible decisions of administrative jurisdiction about the implementations of the administration related to the education right of students at universities, which is secured by the Fundemental Law, on the freedom of education, especially for the last ten years, will be examined. [This study was presented as an oral presentation in The International Conference on Modern Education Studies.]

For this 23rd article in the series reviewing recent court decisions concerning appropriate school psychology practice from both professional and legal perspectives, the topic is the substantive standard for free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with a focus on the classification of specific learning disability (SLD) and with the overlay of a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This case is illustrative of the interactions between eligibility and FAPE, IDEA and Section 504, and legal and professional perspectives.

A qualitative study of twelve student conduct administrators sought to capture their lived experiences relative to the impacts of federal and state regulation, case law, the media, attorney encroachment, parental involvement, and the use of litigation to supersede traditional processes on their professional work and personal lives. The interviews invited participants to share personal narratives about their lived experiences and led to the discovery of seven themes pertaining to the judicialization of their work: (1) communication, (2) conservative decision making, (3) mental health concerns, (4) responding to perceptions of what student conduct is, (5) the role of campus legal counsel, (6) the shift from being student-centered to process-centered, and (7) impacts of students' attorneys. Findings revealed that although this phenomenon has created harms for these practitioners, it has also allowed them to develop strategies for wellness, self-care, and sustainability in the profession.

Political dissent has played an important role in giving U.S. citizens a voice and promoting justice for all. But too often, Sarah Stitzlein argues, dissent is underappreciated, especially in schools. Stitzlein discusses the obstacles to teaching dissent, particularly political movements seeking to suppress curricula and ideas that are considered controversial. She suggests that, instead of silencing dissenting voices, teachers should seek out ways to foreground dissent, by teaching the history of political dissent, getting students to practice skills of disagreement, helping students discern which ideas and voices are worthy of consideration, and modeling respectful engagement with a variety of views.

The paper aims to examine in detail the level of implementation of the right to inclusive education of persons with disabilities stipulated in the Italian legal system, with a particular focus on the Constitution and on the principles stated by the Italian Constitutional Court's case law. The right to education of persons with disabilities is protected through different instruments, constitutional requirements and principles, legislation and case law, and at different territorial levels, representing an emblematic example of integrated or multi-level protection of fundamental rights. However, in reality people with disabilities still face many challenges in accessing education, and this article critically discusses the reform currently planned by the Government designed to address these problems.

The Supreme Court ruled in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) that there is no constitutional right to education, but that has not stopped families and education activists from arguing that this right is implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment. Nicholas Tampio contends that, based upon the history of federal involvement in education, a constitutional right to education would likely lead to an increase in high-stakes testing. The way to prepare young people for citizenship is to raise them in communities, including communities of color, that govern the schools themselves without the oversight of federal judges.

Lower courts are beginning to grapple with challenges to students' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as it relates to the digital environment, cell phones in particular. Recently, lower courts in several states have applied standards set forth decades ago to decide cases involving searches of students' mobile devices. Given the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court, this study aims to: (1) identify and analyze trends in the current application of legal standards related to search and seizure in the digital age; (2) synthesize these findings into a set of essential guidelines for school officials to use as they navigate a legal landscape that has yet to be well defined; and (3) make recommendations to further develop the body of law. Findings indicate that students possess reasonable expectations of privacy in their personal mobile devices and password-protected private Web 2.0 communications. T.L.O governs searches of students' personal mobile devices, so the reasonableness of the search is the key consideration. Substantive suspicion at the outset, carefully tailored searches, and a clear governmental interest will keep school officials from violating students' Fourth Amendment protections.

This article examines an education policy matter that involves homophobic speech in public schools. Using legal research methods, two federal circuit court opinions that have examined the tension surrounding anti-LGBTQ student expression are analyzed. This legal analysis provides non-lawyers some insight into the current realities of student speech jurisprudence in public schools and offers school leaders guidance about how they might address speech that denigrates other students. It also proposes how courts might reconsider analyzing homophobic expression in public schools under existing precedent.

The originators of special education law anticipated disputes and provided due process hearings as a means to settle the disputes. However, due process proved to be unfair, costly (financially and emotionally), and destructive to school-family relationships. Years later, lawmakers offered mandated mediation along with resolution meetings in attempts to lessen the usage of due process. While the number of due process hearings has decreased, mediation and resolution meetings may occur too late in the resolution process to repair broken trust and communication in relationships between families and school districts. Alternative dispute resolution strategies offer means to end conflicts sooner, less expensively, and with fewer damaged relationships.