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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the case of Doninger v. Niehoff et al., denying a preliminary injunction to a Burlington, Connecticut student that would have allowed the student to run for class office despite being stripped of that privilege by school administrators at Lewis Mills High School.  Her offense? Posting a "vulgar and misleading message about the supposed cancellation of an upcoming school event" on a publicly accessible weblog ("blog"). The student's mother sued the school district in federal district court, claiming that her daughter's First Amendment rights had been violated, and seeking to void the election for Senior Class Secretary and either have a new election ordered or grant her daughter the same rights and privileges as would be accorded to her had she won the election, including speaking as class officer at graduation.  The preliminary injunction was denied by Judge Kravitz, and his decision upheld by the Second Circuit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Eginton, has ruled in the case of E.K. v. Stamford Board of Education, 3:07cv00800 (WWE) that the due process rights of a student expelled for leaving threatening racist messages on the voice mail of a female student (among other offenses) were not violated when the student was deprived of the ability to cross-examine the female student who made the accusation, in the expulsion hearing.  Adopting the reasoning of other federal courts, the court stated that due process does not afford high school students the right to confront and cross-examine student accusers at expulsion hearings, in part because the administrative investigation provides a safeguard against error, and cross-examination of student accusers is duplicative of the investigative efforts of school personnel. In addition, "the presence of corroborating evidence diminishes the potential value of cross-examination at the expulsion hearing."  Balancing the student's right to due process against the school's interest in conducting an efficient disciplinary hearing, the court concluded that any provision disallowing the use of hearsay statements and requiring confrontation of student accusers would be overly burdensome to schools due to the increased challenge of maintaining order and discipline. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) issued a letter to a parent seeking access to records that clarifies the scope and requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), noting that the school is not generally required by FERPA to provide a parent with access to school calendars or general notices such as announcements of parent-teacher meetings or extracurricular activities. Such general notices are not educational records pertaining to the individual student and are not subject to the FERPA access requirements.  In addition, a school is not required to create documents in response to a FERPA request, and is not required to provide a parent with periodic updates regarding student records.  Rather than submitting a "standing request", parents seeking access to educational records under FERPA should submit a specific request for records. Unless a specific state law applies (such as Connecticut's regulation allowing parents of special education students to have one free copy of a child's special education records), FERPA requires that the district provide access to the parent to examine the records within 45 days of receipt of the request. Letter to Anonymous, 107 LRP 64188 (FPCO, 9/28/07).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks