16 Feb 2004 Class Notes
Some review of torts / liability issues,
immunity issues and exceptions, cases involving federal due process rights,
residency requirements to attend school...
EDLD
5344
16 Feb 2005
Dr Hartmeister is teaching from Fredricksburg tonight
Introduction of Dr Richard Fosse, candidate for Ed Leadership HC position
- expertise is Educational Law
- clear that in the future, more college students will be older, there will more and more that are working adults and seeking to advance their careers
Worked extensively in the Houston area
- Cypress Fairbanks is in NW Houston, huge district with around 80,000 students
- now with the web, distance from the university library is less of an issue than it was in the past
Notion of comparative negligence is now in vogue
- contribution and comparative are both in the concept
- comparative negligence does allow for some recovery for injury
Assumption of Risk
- voluntary participation is an important idea here
talked a lot about immunity in TX education case
- Meyers case
- TX Supreme case denied certiorari, which means it will not have as broad a jurisprudential impact
devote most of your reading attention in Kemerer and Walsh to Chapter 10
- tort law covered there is state related
Ch 13 Wood v Strickland was actually federal law issue
Ch 12 in A&A: Defamation and Student Records
- good to think about all the "what if's" in the cases that come up, lots of variations and circumstances that can be different
- think about affirmative defenses, think about whether in Texas immunity will apply
- don't think: "We are in Texas, we don't have to worry about any of this because of immunity"
Defamation is defined in A&A on p594
- "the imputation of immorality, dishonesty, or dishonorable conduct to another by spoken or written word"
p. 601 Hett case we'll also discuss
Definitions of libel and slander also important on p. 595
- libel: anything that is written (broadly interpreting "written")
-- can be a picture or character
slander involves publication to a 3rd party
- if it is just a one to one communication, between 2 people (written or spoken) it can't be slander
- publication is viewed broadly: it really just means making someone else aware of it by hearing, reading, etc.
Notion of privilege
- p. 595: providing information to someone who has a need to know, in good faith
p. 601: Hett v Ploetz case
- Hett resigned maybe because he was convinced it was a good idea
- p 602 4th paragraph: told him "it would be in his best interest to resign"
-- this happens all the time, where the resignation is really not "voluntary"
questions were: did privilege exist, and was there "malice"
- opportunity for a plaintiff to win a defamation case in this type of context, where someone is looking to find a new job: should of malice or bad faith, it is an extremely difficult threshold for a plaintiff to meet
past law review journal of TTU law prof, looking back on 34 years of research on defamation
- he found only 2 out of hundreds that the TX Supreme Court granted courtier and heard it
-- both of those involved media defendants
-- only found 8 - 10 where plaintiffs filed suit and were unsuccessful, in times at on appeal
all we are going to look at for defamation cases, for the most part, will be Texas cases because defamation is a state level tort
Malice in case of a public figure is very hard to prove
- sometimes you see those with movie stars against the Enquirer
- many of those are settled, so there are not statistics on those that are settled
If a scenario in the midterm touches on the defamation issue, look at these cases like we have seen
- conclude that it is ok to file that lawsuit, but the chances for recovery in that situation as a plaintiff against a public official are slim
Defendant has the burden to show TRUTH
- truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit
-- must be verifiable
-- must be objective
-- if about an employee, it cannot be kept secret, it must be disclosed (like if it involves behavior problems for an employee)
documentation can support your cause or hang you, it depends what is documented
example: labeling an employee an "alcoholic" could be risky
- instead, document the behavior of the employee that is factually based
- don't make assertions that cannot be proven / supported
we are usually talking about qualified privilege, not absolute
- judges or sometimes legislators have absolute privilege
immunity applies both to negligence and defamation claims in TEXAS
- if you provide good faith info where there is a need to know (not spreading rumors, gossip) in Texas you should also have an immunity defense
See p 596, footnote #23
- only school setting case () where a school administrator - supt - was deemed not to meet the qualified priveledge standard
-- that was because he was not asked about it, he went above and beyond, acing with "reckless disregard of their truth or falsity"
- in this case the supt was undermining this person's attempt to get the job because he had a friend who was applying for the same job, and he wanted him to get the job instead of his own employer
-- This was True v Ladner
don't worry about strict liability consideration pon p. 597 on defamation per se and per quod
you will be asked as a principal to provide recommendations or references for current or former employees
- we have a group project that will focus on this
Other Chap 12 case: more recent supreme court case
- covered by FERPA (Family Rights and Privacy Act)- also known as the Buckley Amendment
- was enacted in 1974
student records are designated to be open / confidential
- means to disclose info about a student record, there must be an exception
similar to open meetings, when you have to have an exception in order to withhold information
Owasso ISD v Falvo p. 624
- plaintiff had gone through successful federal appeals process, but lost at US Supreme Court (had different take on what constituted an offical student record)
When you post student grades, it may be consitutionally permissable to openly state student grades, but there is still a question of "is that the right thing to do?"
so peer grading may not be the worst thing that could happen in schools-- even tho we have a 2002 US Supreme Court ruling saying that it is ok (Owasso ISD v Falvo)
- can we feel sorry for Mrs Falvo? She took this all the way to the US Supreme Court to change a practice, not to recover damages
- it is appropriate in some cases to personalize the case, think actually about Mrs Falvo and her children
- extent of injuries probably wasn't that great, but we should consider that it can be injurious to others
Now turn to p 352, end of Ch 10 in Kemerer and Walsh
- individual liability (2 exceptions to immunity: operation of motor vehicle and use of excessive force in disciplining students)
- state liability (use of operation of motor vehicle is only exception for state immunity)
- p 352, context is civil rights and consitutionality, Title 7 (employee of the district), Title 9 (student being educated in district)
22.0511 - look on WebCT, just applies to STATE LAW CLAIMS
- if teacher is accused of being negligent, defaming someone, and if the immunity provision applies, it only works there for STATE claims, not FEDERAL LAW claims
- if constitutional or federal statutory civil rights are violated, the state immunity does not apply there
-- so states can't rule that their employees are never liable from anything
SUMMARY POINTS from Ch 13 in A&A and Ch 10 Kemerer
- it is possible for a plaintiff to recover against a school district or against individual administrators (rare for it to be against a teacher)
- with the increased pay and responsiblity of the administrator, you take on increased risk and liability
Now lets p 657 Wood v Strickland
- focus is really on the district
- superintendents pay more attention to this potential liability concern because of its DISTRICT level focus
- known as "spiking the punch" case
- the girls spiked the punch, there were not any apparent side effects and other factors
- school board voted to expel students for the remainder of the semester
-- keep this in mind when we discuss Goss v Lopez, also a constitutional due process / student due process case
- trial court (district court) found for the administrators, the defendants (the school board and school officials)
-- they said malice could not be found
Federal circuit of appeals reversed, viewed instruction and decision of district court as erronious
- now you have the individual board members at risk for having violated the student's consitutional rights
- section 1983 case,
- between 1870s when section 1983 was first enacted by US Congress until 1960s, we did NOT have a lot of litigation at the federal level for 1983 claims
look at appendix: p 1013, The Civil Rights Act of 1871, section 1983
- if someone causes an injury to a US citizen, it is appropriate for that person to bring a federal lawsuit for the recovery of monetary damages (typically)
-- those are not capped like claims against school districts or school officials may be
-- there are no caps imposed by Congress!
-- caps for state level can be 100K per person, 300K total per incident
district failed to give the students due process before expelling them
- the board's precipitous action (deciding to expel early on without having a hearing)
- later 2 weeks later they had a hearing, appeals court reversed the trial court found for the plaintiffs and the US Supreme Court affirmed
tests for potential personal liability for 1983 lawsuit
- in the context of school discipline, US supreme court holds a board member is NOT immune under section 1883 if
-- he or she know or reasonably should have known that the action the board member took within his/her sphere of responsiblity would violate the constitional rights or federal statutory civil rights of the school
or
- board member acted maliciously
this is a lower threshold for the plaintiff to prove than if they have to prove malice
If you have been trained in school law, you have more expertise, there is a higher expectation of professional behavior for you
typically, defendants will say "I did not know that"
- in this case, there is an expectation that you will make yourself aware
So the key lesson from Wood v Strickland case is: don't rush to judgement, make sure you provide students with due process
- remember Hortonville case: needs to be provided in front of impartial review committee
- due process keys: they are impartial, they hear both sides, then they act
- opportunity to have a hearing, before a decision was made is key
In this case, the decision was made before the hearing was held
ended of case on p. 660: judgement is vacated = affirmed the result but vacated the rationale
trial courts get facts, not appeals courts
operating in the public arena: employees and students don't abandon federal civil rights and constitutional rights just because of where you work or go to school
- don't extend absolutely, but they do extend to some degree (not absolute)
- it is qualified, not absolute
- public high school students don't leave their substantive and procedural rights at the school gate
board took precipitous action without having a hearing... this was the biggest problem
That is the only Ch 13 case we had mentioned
- now we are only about 1 class session behind
Read Chapter 6: School Attendance Chapter in A&A
- only 4 cases assigned here
- p 250: Plyer v Doe, Education is not a right
- p 254: Martinez v Bynum
Proposition 187 passed in 1997 California general election, it was in court the next day and has been stayed ever since
- this would deny school attendance to students who cannot show proper documentation for residency
-
Plyler v Doe was a 5-4 decision
- it was legislatively popular then to change the Texas law to save dollars
- this case resurfaced in 1997
- this was a close call in terms of the vote, not in terms of the rationale (this concerned children who typically don't have a lot of say in terms of where they live)
Martinez v Bynum
- don't view this as a reversal of the court
- it is a narrower case, focuses more on homeless children like another case we don't have
- for schools accepting public funds, the Martinez v Bynum requirements DO NOT apply to homeless children
- McKinney Vinto law now: if you have children who show up at the schoolhouse door, you have to let them in (Under McKinney Vinto homeless act) without actually forcing them to show their utilities bill, drivers license, etc.
- if you have a family living in a homeless shelter, or under a bridge, and they show up for school: they have a right to go to school in your district
-- Fred thinks Martinez v Bynum case should be replaced by McKinney Vinto statute, because that is more current and a better example of what
Homeless legislation is one area that has been developing rapidly in the last 3-5 years
Now:
p 265 Wisconsin v Yoder
p 269 Johnson
these were 13 years apart
How are these similar and different, and why are they different?
difference had to be that Amish children were growing up to participate in the Amish community (a more closed society and community)
- court ruled (p 271-272) that the Baptist children/students are going to be in the wider world,
- the Iowa Baptists were not able to achieve their goal, which was aligning themselves with the Yoder/Amish decision
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit (to quote Johnny Cochran from the OJ trial)
Now moving to Chapter 7
types of themes: procedural/substantive due process, distinguishing cases, etc are big keys
p. 302: Meyer v Nebraska
- case would have begin as State of NE v Meyer (was convicting this teacher)
- was a criminal case
- affirmed by NE supreme court
- reversed by US supreme court because of violation of substantive due process
we are in the organizational chapter
- we are going to see a lot of competing interests here, we are not seeing as much on student needs here
p 310
Board of Educ Island Trees Union Free School District v Pico
This is the first non-majority Supreme Court case we have looked at
- it was a plurality opinion let by Justice Brennan
- they got to the same result but did it differently
- 6 of the judges decided what the board did with library books was unconstitutional
-- 4 of them disagreed with 2 of them as to why it was unconstitutional
-- agreed on the result, disagreed on the why
- 3 other judges said it was NOT unconstitutional, the school board should have been able to do what they did
anytime we don't have a majority decision from the US Supreme Court, that is confusing
- there are not many cases like this (plurality opinion vs a majority)
- rationale is a head scratcher: what does that mean for me? Can't put as much stock in the result
What
- substantive aspect of what we hear from them (Brennan) is still informative for us, however
"to read the books already on the shelves"
- these were held to be different than the assigned, curriculum books
- 1st Amendment issues are decisive here for plaintiffs (students and parents)
-- even though it was not unanimous, they did prevail at this stage of the proceeding
-- largely the student's first amendment rights, it is more compelling an argument than the author's right to pubish ideas
point is: it is the student's first amendment right (not to speak, they broadly construe the student's ability to have freedom of expression: to get things / access things, as well as say them)
see p. 297 marketplace of idea
- violates students right to receive information, our public educational environment is a "marketplace of ideas"
- don't read this too broadly: as if we will expose K and 1st grade students to anything and everything
as far as the curriculum, the libraries, the government controlled and provided public education opportunities: this is a basic idea going back to Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann.
- shouldn't be a narrowly constrained environment
see p. 309, section on "Curriculum and the Pall of Orthodoxy"
3 cases in chapter for next week one of my favorites, not as a liberal, it is pretty compelling
Tinkers, black Armband case, drug testing, etc...
- these chapter 8 are some of the most important ones we will look at
we will get to chapter 9 next week
16 Feb 2005
Dr Hartmeister is teaching from Fredricksburg tonight
Introduction of Dr Richard Fosse, candidate for Ed Leadership HC position
- expertise is Educational Law
- clear that in the future, more college students will be older, there will more and more that are working adults and seeking to advance their careers
Worked extensively in the Houston area
- Cypress Fairbanks is in NW Houston, huge district with around 80,000 students
- now with the web, distance from the university library is less of an issue than it was in the past
Notion of comparative negligence is now in vogue
- contribution and comparative are both in the concept
- comparative negligence does allow for some recovery for injury
Assumption of Risk
- voluntary participation is an important idea here
talked a lot about immunity in TX education case
- Meyers case
- TX Supreme case denied certiorari, which means it will not have as broad a jurisprudential impact
devote most of your reading attention in Kemerer and Walsh to Chapter 10
- tort law covered there is state related
Ch 13 Wood v Strickland was actually federal law issue
Ch 12 in A&A: Defamation and Student Records
- good to think about all the "what if's" in the cases that come up, lots of variations and circumstances that can be different
- think about affirmative defenses, think about whether in Texas immunity will apply
- don't think: "We are in Texas, we don't have to worry about any of this because of immunity"
Defamation is defined in A&A on p594
- "the imputation of immorality, dishonesty, or dishonorable conduct to another by spoken or written word"
p. 601 Hett case we'll also discuss
Definitions of libel and slander also important on p. 595
- libel: anything that is written (broadly interpreting "written")
-- can be a picture or character
slander involves publication to a 3rd party
- if it is just a one to one communication, between 2 people (written or spoken) it can't be slander
- publication is viewed broadly: it really just means making someone else aware of it by hearing, reading, etc.
Notion of privilege
- p. 595: providing information to someone who has a need to know, in good faith
p. 601: Hett v Ploetz case
- Hett resigned maybe because he was convinced it was a good idea
- p 602 4th paragraph: told him "it would be in his best interest to resign"
-- this happens all the time, where the resignation is really not "voluntary"
questions were: did privilege exist, and was there "malice"
- opportunity for a plaintiff to win a defamation case in this type of context, where someone is looking to find a new job: should of malice or bad faith, it is an extremely difficult threshold for a plaintiff to meet
past law review journal of TTU law prof, looking back on 34 years of research on defamation
- he found only 2 out of hundreds that the TX Supreme Court granted courtier and heard it
-- both of those involved media defendants
-- only found 8 - 10 where plaintiffs filed suit and were unsuccessful, in times at on appeal
all we are going to look at for defamation cases, for the most part, will be Texas cases because defamation is a state level tort
Malice in case of a public figure is very hard to prove
- sometimes you see those with movie stars against the Enquirer
- many of those are settled, so there are not statistics on those that are settled
If a scenario in the midterm touches on the defamation issue, look at these cases like we have seen
- conclude that it is ok to file that lawsuit, but the chances for recovery in that situation as a plaintiff against a public official are slim
Defendant has the burden to show TRUTH
- truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit
-- must be verifiable
-- must be objective
-- if about an employee, it cannot be kept secret, it must be disclosed (like if it involves behavior problems for an employee)
documentation can support your cause or hang you, it depends what is documented
example: labeling an employee an "alcoholic" could be risky
- instead, document the behavior of the employee that is factually based
- don't make assertions that cannot be proven / supported
we are usually talking about qualified privilege, not absolute
- judges or sometimes legislators have absolute privilege
immunity applies both to negligence and defamation claims in TEXAS
- if you provide good faith info where there is a need to know (not spreading rumors, gossip) in Texas you should also have an immunity defense
See p 596, footnote #23
- only school setting case () where a school administrator - supt - was deemed not to meet the qualified priveledge standard
-- that was because he was not asked about it, he went above and beyond, acing with "reckless disregard of their truth or falsity"
- in this case the supt was undermining this person's attempt to get the job because he had a friend who was applying for the same job, and he wanted him to get the job instead of his own employer
-- This was True v Ladner
don't worry about strict liability consideration pon p. 597 on defamation per se and per quod
you will be asked as a principal to provide recommendations or references for current or former employees
- we have a group project that will focus on this
Other Chap 12 case: more recent supreme court case
- covered by FERPA (Family Rights and Privacy Act)- also known as the Buckley Amendment
- was enacted in 1974
student records are designated to be open / confidential
- means to disclose info about a student record, there must be an exception
similar to open meetings, when you have to have an exception in order to withhold information
Owasso ISD v Falvo p. 624
- plaintiff had gone through successful federal appeals process, but lost at US Supreme Court (had different take on what constituted an offical student record)
When you post student grades, it may be consitutionally permissable to openly state student grades, but there is still a question of "is that the right thing to do?"
so peer grading may not be the worst thing that could happen in schools-- even tho we have a 2002 US Supreme Court ruling saying that it is ok (Owasso ISD v Falvo)
- can we feel sorry for Mrs Falvo? She took this all the way to the US Supreme Court to change a practice, not to recover damages
- it is appropriate in some cases to personalize the case, think actually about Mrs Falvo and her children
- extent of injuries probably wasn't that great, but we should consider that it can be injurious to others
Now turn to p 352, end of Ch 10 in Kemerer and Walsh
- individual liability (2 exceptions to immunity: operation of motor vehicle and use of excessive force in disciplining students)
- state liability (use of operation of motor vehicle is only exception for state immunity)
- p 352, context is civil rights and consitutionality, Title 7 (employee of the district), Title 9 (student being educated in district)
22.0511 - look on WebCT, just applies to STATE LAW CLAIMS
- if teacher is accused of being negligent, defaming someone, and if the immunity provision applies, it only works there for STATE claims, not FEDERAL LAW claims
- if constitutional or federal statutory civil rights are violated, the state immunity does not apply there
-- so states can't rule that their employees are never liable from anything
SUMMARY POINTS from Ch 13 in A&A and Ch 10 Kemerer
- it is possible for a plaintiff to recover against a school district or against individual administrators (rare for it to be against a teacher)
- with the increased pay and responsiblity of the administrator, you take on increased risk and liability
Now lets p 657 Wood v Strickland
- focus is really on the district
- superintendents pay more attention to this potential liability concern because of its DISTRICT level focus
- known as "spiking the punch" case
- the girls spiked the punch, there were not any apparent side effects and other factors
- school board voted to expel students for the remainder of the semester
-- keep this in mind when we discuss Goss v Lopez, also a constitutional due process / student due process case
- trial court (district court) found for the administrators, the defendants (the school board and school officials)
-- they said malice could not be found
Federal circuit of appeals reversed, viewed instruction and decision of district court as erronious
- now you have the individual board members at risk for having violated the student's consitutional rights
- section 1983 case,
- between 1870s when section 1983 was first enacted by US Congress until 1960s, we did NOT have a lot of litigation at the federal level for 1983 claims
look at appendix: p 1013, The Civil Rights Act of 1871, section 1983
- if someone causes an injury to a US citizen, it is appropriate for that person to bring a federal lawsuit for the recovery of monetary damages (typically)
-- those are not capped like claims against school districts or school officials may be
-- there are no caps imposed by Congress!
-- caps for state level can be 100K per person, 300K total per incident
district failed to give the students due process before expelling them
- the board's precipitous action (deciding to expel early on without having a hearing)
- later 2 weeks later they had a hearing, appeals court reversed the trial court found for the plaintiffs and the US Supreme Court affirmed
tests for potential personal liability for 1983 lawsuit
- in the context of school discipline, US supreme court holds a board member is NOT immune under section 1883 if
-- he or she know or reasonably should have known that the action the board member took within his/her sphere of responsiblity would violate the constitional rights or federal statutory civil rights of the school
or
- board member acted maliciously
this is a lower threshold for the plaintiff to prove than if they have to prove malice
If you have been trained in school law, you have more expertise, there is a higher expectation of professional behavior for you
typically, defendants will say "I did not know that"
- in this case, there is an expectation that you will make yourself aware
So the key lesson from Wood v Strickland case is: don't rush to judgement, make sure you provide students with due process
- remember Hortonville case: needs to be provided in front of impartial review committee
- due process keys: they are impartial, they hear both sides, then they act
- opportunity to have a hearing, before a decision was made is key
In this case, the decision was made before the hearing was held
ended of case on p. 660: judgement is vacated = affirmed the result but vacated the rationale
trial courts get facts, not appeals courts
operating in the public arena: employees and students don't abandon federal civil rights and constitutional rights just because of where you work or go to school
- don't extend absolutely, but they do extend to some degree (not absolute)
- it is qualified, not absolute
- public high school students don't leave their substantive and procedural rights at the school gate
board took precipitous action without having a hearing... this was the biggest problem
That is the only Ch 13 case we had mentioned
- now we are only about 1 class session behind
Read Chapter 6: School Attendance Chapter in A&A
- only 4 cases assigned here
- p 250: Plyer v Doe, Education is not a right
- p 254: Martinez v Bynum
Proposition 187 passed in 1997 California general election, it was in court the next day and has been stayed ever since
- this would deny school attendance to students who cannot show proper documentation for residency
-
Plyler v Doe was a 5-4 decision
- it was legislatively popular then to change the Texas law to save dollars
- this case resurfaced in 1997
- this was a close call in terms of the vote, not in terms of the rationale (this concerned children who typically don't have a lot of say in terms of where they live)
Martinez v Bynum
- don't view this as a reversal of the court
- it is a narrower case, focuses more on homeless children like another case we don't have
- for schools accepting public funds, the Martinez v Bynum requirements DO NOT apply to homeless children
- McKinney Vinto law now: if you have children who show up at the schoolhouse door, you have to let them in (Under McKinney Vinto homeless act) without actually forcing them to show their utilities bill, drivers license, etc.
- if you have a family living in a homeless shelter, or under a bridge, and they show up for school: they have a right to go to school in your district
-- Fred thinks Martinez v Bynum case should be replaced by McKinney Vinto statute, because that is more current and a better example of what
Homeless legislation is one area that has been developing rapidly in the last 3-5 years
Now:
p 265 Wisconsin v Yoder
p 269 Johnson
these were 13 years apart
How are these similar and different, and why are they different?
difference had to be that Amish children were growing up to participate in the Amish community (a more closed society and community)
- court ruled (p 271-272) that the Baptist children/students are going to be in the wider world,
- the Iowa Baptists were not able to achieve their goal, which was aligning themselves with the Yoder/Amish decision
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit (to quote Johnny Cochran from the OJ trial)
Now moving to Chapter 7
types of themes: procedural/substantive due process, distinguishing cases, etc are big keys
p. 302: Meyer v Nebraska
- case would have begin as State of NE v Meyer (was convicting this teacher)
- was a criminal case
- affirmed by NE supreme court
- reversed by US supreme court because of violation of substantive due process
we are in the organizational chapter
- we are going to see a lot of competing interests here, we are not seeing as much on student needs here
p 310
Board of Educ Island Trees Union Free School District v Pico
This is the first non-majority Supreme Court case we have looked at
- it was a plurality opinion let by Justice Brennan
- they got to the same result but did it differently
- 6 of the judges decided what the board did with library books was unconstitutional
-- 4 of them disagreed with 2 of them as to why it was unconstitutional
-- agreed on the result, disagreed on the why
- 3 other judges said it was NOT unconstitutional, the school board should have been able to do what they did
anytime we don't have a majority decision from the US Supreme Court, that is confusing
- there are not many cases like this (plurality opinion vs a majority)
- rationale is a head scratcher: what does that mean for me? Can't put as much stock in the result
What
- substantive aspect of what we hear from them (Brennan) is still informative for us, however
"to read the books already on the shelves"
- these were held to be different than the assigned, curriculum books
- 1st Amendment issues are decisive here for plaintiffs (students and parents)
-- even though it was not unanimous, they did prevail at this stage of the proceeding
-- largely the student's first amendment rights, it is more compelling an argument than the author's right to pubish ideas
point is: it is the student's first amendment right (not to speak, they broadly construe the student's ability to have freedom of expression: to get things / access things, as well as say them)
see p. 297 marketplace of idea
- violates students right to receive information, our public educational environment is a "marketplace of ideas"
- don't read this too broadly: as if we will expose K and 1st grade students to anything and everything
as far as the curriculum, the libraries, the government controlled and provided public education opportunities: this is a basic idea going back to Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann.
- shouldn't be a narrowly constrained environment
see p. 309, section on "Curriculum and the Pall of Orthodoxy"
3 cases in chapter for next week one of my favorites, not as a liberal, it is pretty compelling
Tinkers, black Armband case, drug testing, etc...
- these chapter 8 are some of the most important ones we will look at
we will get to chapter 9 next week
Posted: Wed - February 16, 2005 at 08:40 PM |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Get More Info
Comments and Trackbacks powered by HaloScan.com.
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: 6
Published On: Feb 16, 2005 08:58 PM
Total entries in this category: 6
Published On: Feb 16, 2005 08:58 PM
