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

In a deal that some National Education Leaders are heralding as a model for school reform throughout the nation, the New Haven Public Schools and the New Haven Federation of Teachers have struck a deal that paves the way for dramatic reform in the New Haven Public Schools and narrowing the achievement gap. In addition to providing compensation for improved student achievement, the agreement allows the school district to incorporate student performance into the teachers’ evaluation process and in exchange establishes a form of peer review and support. The School District will also have substantial latitude in “turnaround,” or poor performing schools to restructure work rules to improve student achievement.  

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On October 5, 2009, Governor Rell signed Senate Bill 2053, An Act Implementing the Provisions of the Budget Concerning Education, Authorizing State Grant Commitments for School Building Projects, and Making Changes to the Statutes Concerning Building Projects and Other Education Statutes. Section 56 of this bill addresses CGS 10-233c, Connecticut’s student suspension law. CGS 10-233c was revised two years ago to favor in school suspensions over out of school suspensions for Connecticut students and changes the allowable days for an in school suspension from five to ten days. Pursuant to Senate Bill 2053, the legislature has voted to once again delay the date for implementation of the law; this time to July 1, 2010. 

Continue Reading...

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

Demonstrating that at least some arbitrators understand the constraints on municipal employers caused by the recession, a panel of arbitrators chaired by Arbitrator Susan Meredith has declined to award a non-certified bargaining unit in the Town of Sterling any wage increase for the 2009-10 fiscal year. It also awarded a 2.5% increase for 2008-09 and a 1.5% increase for 2010-11.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As readers may recall, PA 07-66 created new standards for student suspensions in Connecticut requiring that student suspensions pursuant to 10-233c be in-school suspensions, unless the administration determines that the pupil being suspended poses such a danger to persons or property or such a disruption of the educational process that the pupil should be excluded from school during the period of suspension.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Department of Justice has just released guidance to help schools examine and respond to the issue of school bullying. In light of Connecticut’s strong anti-bullying laws and its new requirements that schools implement proactive strategies and conduct annual in-service training for certified staff on the topic, administrators are encouraged to view in its entirety the recently released U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Policing Services (COPS) guidance entitled “Bullying in Schools”. See www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

The COPS guide is comprehensive and identifies and defines the problem of bullying in schools focusing on the extent of the problem, examines bullying behavior, incidents of bullying, characteristics of bullies, victims, chronic victims, consequences and also provides guidance to schools on how to assess its local problem, how to learn to ask the right questions, and offers suggestions for proactive strategies and suggestions for measuring the effectiveness of those strategies also citing strategies that are not effective. Administrators’ interest in the COPS guidance should be heightened by the reported conclusions that neither class or school size, or school setting, be it urban or suburban, has influence on the level of bullying, but that a school principal’s involvement helps to determine the level of bullying in a particular school.

Continue Reading...

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

The 2009 Connecticut General Assembly has adjourned leaving in its wake seventeen new legislative acts pertaining to education. The 2009 legislation passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor focuses largely on health, safety and environmental related issues among other areas and ranges from an act requiring the use of green cleaning products in the schools to one governing the regulation of the use of asthmatic inhalers and epi-pens in schools by students to another requiring boards to have defibrillators in each of its schools to those of a more mundane nature like the one passed regarding uniform reporting forms for preschool and child care programs. Here is a summary of some of the more interesting bills passed during the 2009 regular session:

*PA 09-131 signed by the Governor June 18, 2009 effective October 1, 2009, requires, rather than allows, boards once every three month, to substitute crisis response drills for the monthly fire drills required in schools under their jurisdiction. The crisis response drill format must be developed in consultation with law enforcement and allow a representative from such agency to supervise and participate in the drill. Boards must also conduct a fire drill no later than 30 days after the first day of the school year and at least once per month thereafter.

Continue Reading...

• 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

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

   Recently the United States Department of Labor promulgated new regulations under the Family Medical Leave Act. School boards should review their policies to assure continued compliance with the FMLA. 

            Noteworthy highlights from the new regulations include:

 

(1)       Military caregiver leave: Expands FMLA protections for family members caring for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness incurred in the line of duty on active duty. These family members are able to take up to 26 workweeks of leave in a 12-month period.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Legislation winding its way through the General Assembly could mandate that local and regional boards of education employ automatic external defibrillators as soon as July 1, 2009. In fact, S.B. 981 as proposed requires schools to train personnel in defibrillator operation and in the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation at each school under the board’s jurisdiction. In addition, a defibrillator and trained personnel would be required to be accessible during the school’s normal hours of operations, during school-sponsored athletic practices and athletic events that take place on schools grounds, and during school sponsored events that occur before or after normal operational hours. 

Continue Reading...

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

In the case of Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick, the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a coach’s participation in a pre-game prayer with his football team violated the establishment clause under the endorsement test. 

The case involved prayer activities that had continued for a number of years. The coach would join his players by bowing his head and taking a knee with the team while they prayed. The coach’s participation was in violation of school policy prohibiting teachers and coaches from engaging in such activity. When the School District sought to force the coach from participating in the activity, he filed an injunctive action claiming violation of his First Amendment rights and that the policy was void as unconstitutionally vague. Ultimately the court ruled for the School District and that the coach was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when he bowed his head and took a knee as the team prayed. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Crosby v. Woodbridge Board of Education, the Superior Court confirmed that a public employer is immune from liability for intentional tort allegedly committed by an employee pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n(a)(2) and therefore is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

In this case, a parent brought a claim on behalf of a minor student against a board of education that contended that the school principal knowingly tolerated an atmosphere of chaos, disruptiveness and violence against the student, as a result of which he was exposed on a daily basis to so much physical and verbal violence in the classroom and play areas that school became a place of fear and learning could not take place in any meaningful manner. In addition, the plaintiff contended that the principal’s acts and omissions were extreme and outrageous and were carried out with knowledge that the student would suffer, and in fact did suffer, emotional distress as a result. The school principal was not named as a defendant.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Commissioner of Education Mark McQuillan issued new guidance dated October 1, 2008 to all school districts to help implement the new requirements of Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-233c requiring all suspensions to be in-school rather than out-of-school (unless certain requirements are met) as of July 1, 2009.  This guidance was required by the legislation passed last year, and is available on the State Department of Education website.  In his memorandum to school districts, Commissioner McQuillan invites districts to continue to review the guidance document and submit feedback to help create the most useful guidelines possible.  The Department also promises to hold technical assistance seminars and workshops between now and March 2009 to help districts assess their readiness to implement the new law for the 2009-2010 school year.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Have you ever received a complaint that you were unfairly charging a member of the public for copying documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because you charged separately for copying each side of a double-sided piece of paper?  The Court of Appeals now says this practice is perfectly legitimate, since the dictionary definition of a "page" means one side of a piece of paper.  In Williams v. Freedom of Information Commission, 108 Conn.App. 471 (2008), the plaintiff complained about being charged separately for copying each side of a double-sided piece of paper, claiming that this practice violated Section 1-212(e) and the definition of a "page".  While acknowledging that depending on the context, the term "page" can sometimes mean one side of a piece of paper and other times refers to a double-sided sheet of paper, the court found that the legislature in the State of Connecticut generally defines a "page" as one side of a piece of paper.  Furthermore, although the general purpose of FOIA is to provide reasonably easy access to public records at a relatively low cost, the legislature has acknowledged that there is a cost to public agencies associated with complying with the Act, and has shifted part of that cost to the person requesting copies of the public records.  To the extent that some people find the cost of copies prohibitively expensive, the Act provides that the usual fee may be waived in some instances.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The passage of PA 08-160 which repeals C.G.S. 10-222d, the state’s existing bullying statute effective July 1, 2008, and adds new requirements and changes the definition of bullying seemingly has gone unnoticed. The lack of attention may be because this Act also addresses controversial changes to in school suspension laws which have garnered much attention. Notwithstanding the lack of notice, PA 08-160 makes significant changes to the existing bullying laws and places new requirements on school districts to implement and revise their bullying policies.

Pursuant to PA 08-160, the definition of “bullying” has been expanded to include “any overt acts by a student or group of students directed against another student with the intent to ridicule, harass, humiliate or intimidate the other student while on school grounds, at a school sponsored activity or on a school bus, which acts are committed more than once against any student during the school year.” This definitional change eliminates the requirement that the overt acts be committed repeatedly against the same student over time. Presumably, the previous requirement that the acts be committed against the same student over time, prevented schools under their bullying policies from disciplining a student who engaged in pervasive, generalized bullying, but did not engage in specific bullying of one individual student over time.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the close of the 2008 legislative session, HB 5826 An Act Concerning School Learning Environment has passed. The bill postpones from July 1, 2008 to July 1, 2009 the effective implementation date for PA 07-66 which generally prohibits out of school suspensions and extends from five to ten days, the maximum length of in-school suspensions. The passage of PA 07-66 raised a number of concerns for school boards and school administrators regarding the pragmatics of implementing the new law. Those concerns included questions over the potential additional costs for implementation, staffing issues and space issues, as well as questions about how under the new law, administrators are to discern what student behaviors are seriously disruptive enough to warrant on out-of-school suspension.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two Historic Law Firms Join Forces to Become Pre-eminent Connecticut Firm

Two of the oldest law firms in Connecticut have joined forces in a move that will create one of the most comprehensive legal services businesses in the state. Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. and Wake, See, Dimes, Bryniczka & Bloom (of Westport, Conn.) have combined their practices, as of March 1, 2008, resulting in a staff of nearly 30 attorneys covering 14 different law specialties. The new firm will operate under the name of Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C., and will maintain existing offices at 75 Broad Street in Milford and 27 Imperial Avenue in Westport.

Areas of practice at Berchem, Moses & Devlin include education law, business and commercial law, labor and employment, civil litigation, land use, estate planning, and real estate law. The newly combined firm will have a particular strength in education and municipal law.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's bills filed in the General Assembly include Raised Bill 5833, a proposed amendment to Connecticut General Statutes Section 53a-119, which would add as a felony criminal charge "obtaining school accommodations by misrepresenting a child's residence".  This would be defined as a parent, guardian or person acting on behalf of such person (or student if over the age of 18), intentionally misrepresenting the town of residence of the child, with the intent to obtain school accommodations from a school district other than the one in which the child resides.

Although other sections of the criminal code relating to theft of public goods have been cited in connection with the arrest of parents in connection with this type of offense, this would make it clear that such conduct is a criminal offense without having to rely on an interpretation of another more general section of the criminal code.  This bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

For other new bills filed, read on...

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If the last few days are any indication, it promises to be a busy season for the General Assembly, particularly at the Committee on Education.  Multiple bills have been raised in both the Senate and the House pertaining to education of school-age children, and most of these have been referred to the Education committee. While by no means an exhaustive list, here are a few of the more interesting bills submitted to the committee or raised by the committee so far this session: Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations recently issued a decision, Region 16 Board of Education, Decision No. 4270 (2007), in which it held that a unilateral change in the workload of Special Education Teachers constituted a prohibited practice. In doing so, the Board created an exception to the general rule that a unit wide fixed practice must be demonstrated in order for a union to establish a unilateral change based upon prior practice. 

Generally, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to change a term or condition of employment in the face of a unit wide fixed past practice. Accordingly, where there has been a mixed practice, unions have been hard pressed to prove a violation. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent decision issued by the Connecticut Supreme Court, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was held to protect a school district from liability from suit as a result of an injury sustained by a parent picking up a six year old child from an after school program sponsored by the Hartford Board of Education. Durrant v. Board of Educ. of Hartford, 284 Conn. 91 (2007).  Reasoning that the child's attendance at the after-school program was voluntary rather than mandatory, the presence of the parent on school grounds to pick up that child from the program and escort him home was likewise voluntary rather than mandatory.  Therefore, although the parent was injured when she slipped in a puddle of water in a stairwell, the doctrine of soveriegn immunity protected the school district and its agents from liability for the injury.  The court rejected the argument that because the creation of the after-school program was authorized by statute, this indicated an intention on the part of the legislature to abrogate the doctrine of sovereign immunity and allow school districts to be held liable for these types of injuries.  The court also noted that the mere fact that the school district maintained insurance coverage for personal injury claims was not an indication that sovereign immunity should be abrogated, since school districts are expected to maintain insurance coverage for other reasons.  Will decisions like this discourage insurance carriers from raising premiums on coverage for school districts in Connecticut this year?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In its Regular Session, the Legislature made several changes to the laws regarding suspension and expulsion of students in Connecticut schools.  Some of these changes went into effect on July 1, 2007, while others will not go into effect until July 1, 2008.  Knowing which is which is important, since these changes will impact the type of disciplinary action that may be taken in the case of a disciplinary infraction during the 2007-2008 school year. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Public Act 07-3, Section 49, passed during the June Special Session of the Legislature, now requires that the notice of an expulsion hearing include information about free and reduced cost legal services available locally and how to access these services.  This requirement took effect on July 1, 2007.  If you are still using last year's expulsion hearing notice form, make sure to update your notice form to include this newly required information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With seemingly little notice or fan-fare, the General Assembly modified a number of education statutes regarding student discipline including the statute providing for the out of school suspension of students.  PA 07-66, effective July 1, 2008, generally prohibits out-of-school suspensions, and extends from five to 10 days, the maximum length of in-school suspensions. Current law defines suspension as exclusion from school privileges, or from transportation services only, for up to 10 consecutive school days. Under former law, in school suspensions were limited to five school days in length. While extending the time period for in school suspensions from five (5) days to ten (10) school days, the new law essentially requires suspensions to be in-school suspension unless the school administration determines through an informal suspension hearing that (a) the student poses such a danger to person or property, or (b) is so disruptive of the education process, that he or she must receive an out of school suspension. Under former law and according to most board polices, administrators have the discretion to suspend a student, in or out of school, for behavior that either violates a board policy, poses a danger to self or others or is seriously disruptive of the educational process. To suspend a student for off campus misconduct a student’s behavior must both violate a board policy and be disruptive of the educational process.  Unfortunately, the new law fails to define what student behavior “poses such a danger to person or property” or “is so disruptive of the educational process” that it warrants an out of school suspension and leaves administrators with little guidance on how to determine whether a student’s behavior has risen to a level of severity warranting an out of school suspension. PA 07-66, effective July 1, 2008.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In at least partial response to an incident in which a pedestrian was struck and killed by a school bus driver who had cocaine in his system, a law has been passed which now requires background checks and random drug testing of school bus drivers. While bus drivers employed by school districts are already subject to background checks, the law imposes a similar requirement on bus drivers employed by outside bus services. 

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The principal of the Juneau-Douglas High School allowed students and staff, during school hours, to leave class and observe as the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau. Joseph Frederick, a senior at the high school, came to school late that day but joined the spectators across the street from the school to watch the relay.  He, along with others, unfurled a fourteen foot banner which said “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS”. When the principal approached him and asked him to take down the banner, he refused to do so. He was suspended for 10 (later reduced to 8) days. The school based this discipline on its determination that Frederick’s speech, in the midst of a school sponsored activity, was reasonably interpreted as advocating illegal drug use. Frederick appealed this decision and sought damages against the principal, claiming his words were just “nonsensical” and not intended to be drug related in any way.

Continue Reading...

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

There has been some confusion lately as to whether state statutes concerning appropriate license endorsements for school buses also apply to the drivers of passenger cars used to transport school students to extracurricular activities. So much confusion, that the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) recently received a Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking clarification on this subject from the DMV. 

Due to the level of interest in this matter, and the number of persons and organizations that could be affected by a Declaratory Ruling, the DMV has scheduled a public hearing to take place on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. at the Rowland State Government Center, 55 West Main Street, Waterbury, Connecticut.   

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks