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

A free curriculum is available from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to address cyberbullying issues at NSBA.  NSBA partnered with a group called CyberSmart to produce this curriculum (reported to be "research-based" for those concerned about those things), and it is described on the NSBA website as addressing all of the major issues: 

 In developing these lessons, CyberSmart! adopted an integrated approach, examining all current research findings and using best practices from the fields of cyber security, school violence prevention, and character education to impact behavioral change. Together, these materials offer schools the opportunity to begin a dialogue with students and build a sustained cyberbullying prevention campaign to continually remind the school community about safe, ethical online use.

If anyone uses or has used the curriculum, please post comments here and/or provide feedback to NSBA - they are promising to make adjustments if there are any problems based on feedback from users.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The School Nutrition Foundation (SNF) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are co-hosting a free webinar series beginning April 29, 2009 on management of food allergies in the schools.  More information is available at SNF.  The series continues on May 27 and June 3, with each webinar startiing at 2:30 p.m. EDT and lasting about 75 minutes per session.  Each webinar features a panel of experts in school health and nutrition to talk about the issues, how to develop a school policy, and how to implement the policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Parents sue Ohio school over bullied son's suicide

Associated Press; Fri Apr 3, 11:48 am ET  

MENTOR, Ohio – An Ohio couple has filed a lawsuit saying school officials failed to stop bullying that they claim led to their 17-year-old son's suicide.

The suit was filed in federal court last week, almost two years to the day when Eric Mohat shot himself in the head. Parents William and Janis Mohat say their son was taunted and harassed by classmates at Mentor High School for months before his death on March 27, 2007.

Their lawsuit accuses the school district about 25 miles northeast of Cleveland of violating the high school junior's civil right to safety.

The teen's father says they would drop the suit if the school system adopted tougher regulations on bullying.

Without commenting on the litigation, school officials say the district takes bullying seriously.

Yahoo News

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A brief review of pending legislation currently awaiting action in the Connecticut legislature:

SB 6489: An Act Concerning a Plan for School Resource Officers.  This law would be effective 7/1/09, but would require by 1/1/10 the Department of Education, Department of Children and Families, the Judicial Department, and the Connecticut School Resource Officer Association to develop a joint plan for resource officer training including the roles and responsibilities of resource officers, relevant state and federal laws (could take a while), security awareness in the school environment, counseling and conflict resolution, disaster and emergency response, deescalation of student behavior including dealing with students with special education needs, child and adolescent psychology and development, cultural competence, and gender-responsive strategies.  This is not to say that the plan would have to be implemented by January 1, 2010 and all training accomplished by that date, just that the plan would need to be established and reported to the legislature by the Department of Education.  However, for districts looking to read the tea-leaves for the types of training that should be provided to school resource officers, the legislature has made the tea, drained the cup, and left it sitting on the table for you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On March 27, 2009, the United States Department of Education issued a revised version of its document entitled Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities, updating it to include new information about the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments (ADAA) effective January 1, 2009.  In addition to the commentary included in the FAQ document, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) states that it is currently evaluating the impact of the ADAA on its enforcement responsibilities, including whether any changes to regulations are appropriate.

Changes to the FAQ document include Question 21, regarding whether districts may consider mitigating measures in determining whether the student has a disability under Section 504.  Consistent with the ADAA, the answer now states that school districts are not permitted to consider mitigating measures that the student is using in determining whether the student has a disability, except for ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A long-awaited memorandum from the State Department of Education describes in bullet-points the Department's interpretation of the recent changes to the anti-bullying legislation found in Title 10 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and also adds a further gloss in the form of "best practices" for school districts to follow to improve school climate.  Among the tips provided by SDOE -

• Although no disciplinary action should be taken on the basis of an anonymous report of bullying, schools should consider these reason to investigate.
• Parents should be invited to at least one meeting, invitations for which should be in writing and maintained on file at the school. Meetings with parents of alleged victims and parents of alleged perpetrators should be held separately.  Notification of consequences must comply with FERPA.
• Lists of verified acts of bullying will be collected by SDOE at some unidentified point in the future.
• Investigation of bullying allegations may need to include the Title IX Coordinator to ensure that potential class harassment issues are identified and managed.
• Revised bullying policies that were supposed to be submitted to SDOE as of February 1, 2009 need to be published in student/parent handbooks by July 1, 2009.
• Districts need to implement some form of positive behavioral interventions and supports or evidence-based model for improving safe school climate or preventing bullying.
• Although the statute requires surveys to determine the prevalence of bullying, SDOE prefers surveys that will determine school site safety, parent and staff perceptions, and assess the quality of the school climate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a vote taken April 1, 2009, all 30 of the committee members of the Joint Committee on Education present and voting voted in favor of SB 1142, An Act Concerning State Mandates on School Districts (two members were absent).  However, substitute bill language was adopted by the committee addressing only the issue of the date that non-renewal notices must be sent (adjusting this from April 1 to May 1) and school readiness grants.  The sections addressing the allocation of the burden of proof in a due process hearing and the date for termination of services at age 21 have been removed from the original bill language.  Advocates for these provisions will have to wait until the next legislative session to have their positions heard.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (“Ledbetter Act”) into law. Pub. L. No. 111-2. The new law changes litigation of pay discrimination claims in the following ways:

        (1)       Resets the statute of limitations clock for filing a wage claim each time an employee receives a paycheck, benefits, or “other compensation,” allowing an employee to sue for alleged discrimination based on when she is  impacted rather than when the decision occurred.

        (2)       Applies to alleged discriminatory pay practices based on all protected categories, including race, gender, age, color, disability, national origin and religion.

        (3)       Expands the definition of an unlawful employment practice to include not only discreet “decisions” regarding compensation, but also any “other practice” that affects an employee’s compensation.

The statute applies retroactively back to May 27, 2007.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks