Connecticut Education Law Blog : Connecticut Education Lawyer & Attorney : Berchem, Moses & Devlin Law Firm : CT Public Schools

In what is one of, if not the first decision of its type in Connecticut, an independent hearing officer has ruled that the Groton Board of Education had grounds to terminate Paul Kadri its Superintendent of Schools.  

As in most districts, Kadri was under contract which provided for grounds for termination similar to those found in the Teacher Tenured Act, including “other due and sufficient cause.”  It also provided that the Board would conduct a hearing before termination.  Kadri, however, through his counsel raised concerns regarding alleged predetermination on the part of certain board members.  Out of an abundance of caution, the Board agreed to place the decision in the hands of an independent arbitrator, Mr. Timothy Bornstein, which decision the Parties agreed, would be final and binding.

In a decision issued March 4, Mr. Bornstein ruled that due to mistreatment of staff, including numerous physical and verbal assaults, the Groton Board of Education had just cause to terminate his employment. 

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Some of you may have noticed that this blog has gone somewhat silent in the last couple of months.  It’s not that there haven’t been developments in education law worthy of comment.  But business as usual has been difficult to reestablish.  Instead, we seem to be establishing a "new normal", much as I imagine schools in Colorado did in the wake of the Columbine High School shooting.  In the days and weeks since the Sandy Hook tragedy, I have tried to put into words some coherent view of this from the perspective of a school attorney.  A coherent view of it through any lens seems impossible.  Six weeks later, we look back at the abject shock and horror of Friday, December 14, 2012, the desperate search for basic facts amid the storm of misinformation and speculation, quickly followed by denial regarding the enormity of the loss of life, admiration for the courage of the educators who did their utmost to protect the innocent children in their charge, some of them making the ultimate sacrifice in service of children, and profound sorrow at the loss of each and every teacher hero and precious little angel.  We are thankful for the courage of the first responders and others in the law enforcement and medical fields who may still be able to shed light on why and how this happened once they have completed their full investigation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

School is back in session for the 2012-2013 academic year and the time has arrived for school districts to fully implement all aspects of Connecticut’s anti-bullying law.  July 1, 2012 marked the deadline for implementation of certain remaining aspects of the state’s bullying law last revised in 2011.  With the advent of a new school year and with the July 1, 2012 deadline having come and gone, school districts should be busy reviewing their districts’ bullying policies and related policies such as their anti-discrimination and anti- harassment policies, any related regulations, examining their safe school climate plans, and creating or revising procedures for implementation of the plans, policies and regulations to ensure compliance with all aspects of the law.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, the Connecticut State Board of Education (CSBOE) adopted long awaited definitions of excused and unexcused student absences as required under Public Act 11-136, An Act Concerning Minor Revisions to the Education Statutes. The new definitions promise to promote consistency and reliability in the state’s data collection and reporting related to student attendance. The new definitions are to be used by school districts to determine which students qualify as truant for state reporting purposes; however, school districts retain the right to maintain their existing definitions for internal purposes such as promotion and grading. The current definition of truant and school district reporting requirements under the Families with Service Needs statute remain unchanged; a truant is a student who has four unexcused absences in a month or ten unexcused absences in a school year.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

School administrators frequently grapple with the treatment of video recordings. From Constitutional issues to concerns about education records, administrators need to be aware of how to use surveillance cameras appropriately and how to respond to requests for copies of those video recordings. As more and more districts are using video surveillance in schools, this issue promises to remain a big issue for districts into the foreseeable future.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a decision issued March 31, 2012, a United States District Court judge has rejected the appeal of the Plainville, Connecticut board of education from a hearing officer's ruling mandating reimbursement for residential placement at the F.L. Chamberlain School in Massachusetts.  In Plainville Board of Education v. R.N. by Mrs. H., 112 LRP 16721 (D. Conn. 2012), Judge Chatigny deferred to the rulings of the hearing officer on issues of educational policy and her findings of fact in ruling in favor of the parent.  As described in the decision, the case presents a remarkable picture of a student who, as a result of severe emotional disturbance, was unable to benefit from a therapeutic day program and required a residential placement in order to make educational progress, and it also addresses some common legal disputes between parents and school districts on the subject of obtaining evaluations and exploring appropriate placement options.  See if you recognize any of this pattern in your current cases:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you are responsible for the implementation of either IEP's or Section 504 plans in your school district, at some point, you have probably encountered a situation where a parent refuses to provide consent (or revokes consent) for an IEP, and insists that the district instead implement a Section 504 Accommodation Plan.  If so, you have probably wondered whether the district was obligated to do this, and you may have read the 1996 letter of guidance issued by OCR called Letter to McKethan, 25 IDELR 295 (OCR 1996).  Well, it looks like McKethan just got another "shot in the arm" from a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Missouri.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Anoka-Hennepin school district (District) in Minnesota recently entered into a five year consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to resolve two separate actions brought by six current or former district students alleging peer-on-peer harassment and discrimination based upon sex and sexual orientation. The actions were brought against the district, its school board and several individual school administrators.

The negotiated consent decree provides for detailed remedial measures aimed at eliminating and preventing future instances of harassment in its education programs and activities and also requires payment of $270,000 to the plaintiffs in full settlement of the Title IV and Title IX claims. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link