Public school districts are obligated to provide students with disabilities a chance to make “appropriately ambitious” progress, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Wednesday. The case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, could have widespread implications when it comes to how educators treat special education students moving forward–as children with the right to advance in the classroom.

“It cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for children who are not,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion, using the acronym for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees free public education for students with disabilities.

The plaintiff, Endrew F., has autism. In 2010, his parents determined that his public school was not providing him with a sufficiently rigorous education. They removed Endrew from public school and enrolled him in a private school, Firefly Autism House. After spending two years at the private school, Endrew’s parents sought reimbursement for his private school tuition with the Colorado Department of Education. That request was denied by an Administrative Law Judge, but the case moved forward.

A Federal District Court later ruled in favor of the school district; the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Wednesday’s decision vacates the lower court’s ruling. According to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, which filed a brief for Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, “public school educators across the nation have regularly set high expectations for and provided meaningful educational benefits to students with disabilities.”

The brief continued: “Decades of research and experience establish that the education of children with disabilities is enhanced by placing high expectations on these children – tailored to their individual abilities and potential – in order to prepare them to be college- and career- ready and to lead productive and independent adult lives.”

The 8-0 decision came as Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is on the third day of his confirmation hearings. Gorsuch has been involved in over ten cases involving students with disabilities. In eight he sided with the school district. In today’s hearing, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), asked Gorsuch about his pro-school district record on cases like the Endrew. “I was wrong, Senator, because I was bound by circuit precedent, and I’m sorry,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Special Education Rights appeared first on Law Street.

The headlines always describe a similar situation, one exemplified by the well know Sandusky case, or possibly closer to home, by one of the scandals in our local schools. Ringing any bells? Dirty coach found amidst a sex scandal, abusing their power in the locker room. This story becomes old news right after headlines break, with the coach rightfully being fired or placed in jail. However, the state of Iowa is allowing coaches to get away with this sexual exploitation without penalty, causing heated debate over Iowa legislation. How is this possible?

On Friday, April 11, 2014 the Iowa Supreme Court in a vote of 5-2, ruled to overturn the sexual exploitation conviction of Patrick Nicoletto because of a loophole stating he was not hired as a licensed teacher. This means that Nicoletto’s current employment title prevents him from being charged with sexual exploitation under Iowa law.

This case first arose in 2012, when 36 year old Nicoletto was accused of sexual exploitation. This case arose when another school employee uncovered the Bloomfield basketball coach’s sexual relationship with a 16 year old high school junior on his team. Nicoletto was sentenced to five years in jail, but posted bond while his case was on appeal.

This ruling was reversed on Friday by Justice Brent Appel due to the fact that Nicoletto was hired as an assistant coach, rather than a licensed teacher or school administrator. Thus, he could not legally be prosecuted under the current Iowa legislation because coaches are not specifically mentioned by Iowa Code. This solely outlines sexual exploitation by a counselor, therapist, or other school employee (not including coaches or assistant coaches).

This new ruling is causing a stir within the Iowa community, noted by  Governor Terry Branstad’s calls for legal revisions. Other states such as Alabama specifically label coaches and assistant coaches as falling within sexual exploitation statutes– Iowa should do the same. Advocates such as Executive Director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Beth Barnhill, are making their concerns regarding this case very clear. They feel that the sexual exploitation statute should clearly extend to a case such as Nicoletto regardless of his current status. They agree this case creates an opportunity to clarify exactly who falls under the sexual exploitation statute and who can be convicted.

This case is not the first to present the idea that Iowa sexual exploitation legislation is too broad. This past November presented a similar debate regarding exploitation statutes, but outside of a school setting, as pastor Patrick Edouard was convicted of sexual exploitation, as a counselor. The defense attorneys argued that Iowa Supreme Court had previously labeled “counseling” as a professional activity that did not include the type of relationship that Edouard had with his parishioners. The Iowa attorney general’s office has appealed the ruling and both sides of the argument have been heard by the Supreme Court, although there is no current ruling.

Both of these cases underline the fact that legislators need to write criminal statutes with a clear voice and Iowa must specifically define who can receive penalties for sexual exploitation. The fact that someone such as a coach, who is placed in a position of authority, can take advantage of his power by having sex with a student is absurd. The fact that in Iowa this can be done without penalty is even more absurd. This means that legally due to a loophole labeling Nicoletto as a coach rather than a licensed school official, he had sexual relations with a 16 year old student that is on his team. On the other hand a teacher would reap the consequences for these exact actions. We can find solace in the fact that while Nicoletto may not under Iowa law, be charged with sexual exploitation, he may be brought up on other charges. Although, 16 is on the cusp of consensual sex. On a broader level, this case demonstrates that laws with loopholes may create injustice. It would be right for this coach to be penalized regardless of his job title, but simply because the law is not specific enough, Nicoletto was able to escape through the cracks unscathed. In the future, laws as serious as these must have specific definitions with specific consequences.

[The Des Moines Register] [Iowa Code]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Legal: Iowa Coaches Can Sexually Exploit Their Students appeared first on Law Street.

“A Tennessee teacher drives ill student to the hospital and pays for the bill.”

“A third grader shaves her head to show her support for a friend with cancer.”

These heartwarming headlines sound like stories of praised heroic acts, but are, in fact, cases in which their schools have taken disciplinary actions against these seemingly good deeds. While society is moving forward and becoming more accepting, many school policies are lagging behind.

Let us look at a few examples in which certain actions that should have been applauded by a school board, were instead deemed as inappropriate.

On March 31 2014, a teacher named Jennifer Mitts was forced to resign from her position with Red Bank High School based on her selfless actions. The well liked, Mitts drove a 20-year-old student, lacking health insurance, to the hospital and paid for the bill. This incident sounded extremely familiar to actions that Mitts had undertaken last year and was previously scolded as a consequence. Last year, Mitts drove a pregnant student tentatively diagnosed by the nurse to have pneumonia to the doctor, saving the life of the unborn child and Red Bank student.

Rather than receiving praise for her actions, Mitts earned a slap on the wrist and ultimately a forced resignation. The school board originally regarded the primary hospital visit as inappropriate and after learning of her recent actions, “forced” her to sign a letter of resignation. This is justified by the assistant superintendent, Stacey Stewart who called Jennifer Mitt’s actions, a liability issue, an issue of insubordination as she was already scolded for similar actions and finally a neglect of duty after leaving the classroom unattended. There is currently a petition circulating in order to return Jennifer Mitts to her teaching position, that has already received 500 signatures.

There is debate over whether Jennifer has the grounds to file a lawsuit. Mitts is claiming that with the signing of her resignation, she was forced to waive her rights to a hearing. On the other hand, officials are claiming that Mitts was only going to be suspended temporarily and the resignation was voluntary. A lawsuit may be filed against the school board in the near future.

A similar story that circulated the news on March 26, is the suspension of third grader Kamryn Renfro, who shaved her head in support of her cancer ridden friend, Delaney Clements. Rather than administrators at Caprock Academy of Colorado applauding the brave actions of the young Kamryn, they instead disciplined her for violating the dress code. The school board chairman, Catherine Norton Breman explained that the school dress code policy is very detailed in order to prevent a distracting environment and promote uniformity. Therefore, shaved heads are not permitted.

Kamryn was forbidden to return to school on Monday, March 24. However on Tuesday, when this story broke to the news world, Kamryn was temporarily readmitted to school. Finally, a vote was taken regarding the issue and the Caprock Academy School Board readmitted Kamryn to school in a 3 to 1 vote on March 25.

I fully understand that certain policies are in place to keep order within a school setting such as requiring a teacher to be present in a classroom or labeling certain clothing items as outside of the realm of dress code. Although, there are extreme cases that should overrule the school policies in place because some things can be considered more important than a school policy. For example, let’s say, a student’s life or maybe even the compassion a little girl shows to a friend who is fighting cancer. Yes, school policies are there for a reason and should often times be enforced, however these extreme cases are exceptions. I do not believe that either of these individuals should have received disciplinary actions for their noble behavior simply because they may have bent a few rules. Sometimes, rules are meant to be broken.

[The Huffington Post] [The Huffington Post]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schools Decide That No Good Deed Goes Unpunished appeared first on Law Street.