Case Law Matrix

Issue Case(s) Date Findings/

Results of the

Case

Dissenting/

Opposing

Opinion

Local Concern/

School Policy Handbook

1. Attendance Pierce vs. Societyof Sisters

1925 The Oregon CompulsoryEducation Act thatrequired attendance atpublic schools was heldunconstitutional under theDue Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment.The Supreme Court did,however, indicate that theState has the power torequire children to attendsome school and the powerto regulate schools toensure that they are doinga good job at education.

The state and districtattorneys argued that thestate had an overridinginterest to oversee andcontrol the providers ofeducation to the children ofOregon. One of them evenwent so far as to callOregonian students "theState's children". Theycontended that the State'sinterest in overseeing theeducation of citizens andfuture voters was so greatthat it overrode the parents'right to choose a providerof education for their child,and the right of the child toinfluence the parent in thisdecision.

P1460 PUPILATTENDANCE

WPS BOARDPOLICY:

Regular schoolattendance isrequired of allpupils enrolled inelementary andsecondary schoolsunder the Kansascompulsoryattendance statue(KSA § 72-1111). The Kansascompulsory schoolattendance lawmakes parentsresponsible forrequiring a childunder their controlor charge who is atleast seven (7) andunder eighteen (18)years of age attendschool on acontinuous basis,unless the child hasattained a highschool diploma or ageneral educationaldevelopment (“GED”)credential.

2. Discrimination Brown vs. Boardof Ed.

Missouri vs.Jenkins

1954

1969

Brown v. Board ofEducation of Topeka,(1954), was a landmarkdecision of the UnitedStates Supreme Court,which overturned earlierrulings going back toPlessy v. Ferguson in 1896,by declaring that statelaws which establishedseparate public schoolsfor black and whitestudents denied black

I guess the main argumentwas was based on separatebut equal, the idea thatsegregation based onclassifications was legal aslong as facilities were ofequal quality.

P6812EQUITY/MULTICULTURALEDUCATION

WPS BOARD POLICY:

The population of theWichita Public Schools iscomprised of a variety ofethnic, cultural, religious,and racial groups.Individual classrooms, aswell as schools, reflect this

Name: Raj Sharma Term: Fall 2007-08

9/5/2010 Case Law Matrix

http://rajnarayansharma.com/matrix.htm 1/13

students denied blackchildren equal educationalopportunities. This victorypaved the way forintegration and the CivilRights Movement.

Missouri v. Jenkins,(1995), is a case decidedby the United StatesSupreme Court. On June12, 1995 the Courtoverturned a DistrictCourt ruling that requiredthe state of Missouri tocorrect the racialinequality in schools byfunding salary increasesand remedial educationprograms

.

diverse population. It is theresponsibility of schoolstaffs, working withCurriculum & AssessmentDesign and other districtpersonnel, to help childrenand adults learn toappreciate the individualdifferences and similaritiesof these populations whileat the same time ensuringequal treatment for all.

3. School prayer Engels vs. Vitaleand

Lee vs. Weisman

1962

1992

US Supreme Courtdecision of 1962 dealingwith the constitutionalityof prayer in publicschools. The case wasbrought against the NewYork Board of Regents forinstituting an officialdaily prayer in the state'spublic schools. The Courtordered the regents toterminate the program,ruling that the governmentshould not involve itself inthe creation of anyofficial religious practice,sectarian or not.

The U.S. Supreme Courtheld that "Includingclergy who offer prayersas part of an officialpublic school graduationceremony is forbidden bythe Establishment Clause.

I believe one of the mainarguments could be thereligious rights of studentsand their right to freedomof conscience do not stop atthe schoolhouse door.

In this case, Petitioners'argument that the option ofnot attending the ceremonyexcuses any inducement orcoercion in the ceremonyitself is rejected. In thissociety, high schoolgraduation is one of life'smost significant occasions,and a student is not free toabsent herself from theexercise in any real senseof the term 'voluntary'.

P1501 FIRST AMENDMENTRELIGIOUSRIGHTS

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Unified School District No.259 teachers mustrecognize pupils’ FirstAmendment religious rights.The United StatesConstitution’s FirstAmendment imposes twoequally importantobligations on publicschools. First, schools mustnot forbid pupils acting ontheir own from expressingtheir personal religiousviews or beliefs. Second,schools may not endorsereligious activity or doctrineand pupils may not coerceparticipation in religiousactivity. Schools must givepupils the same rights toengage in religious activityand discussion as they haveto engage in othercomparable activity.Generally, this means thatpupils may pray in a non-disruptive manner during theschool day when they arenot engaged in schoolactivity and instruction,subject to the same rules asapply to other speech.Notwithstanding anything tothe contrary in this policy orother District policies,participation inconstitutionally protectedprayer in elementary or



secondary schools shall beallowed.

4. Civil rights Civil Rights

Legislation of1964

1964 The comprehensive U.S.legislation intended to enddiscrimination based onrace, color, religion, ornational origin; it is oftencalled the most importantU.S. law on civil rightssince Reconstruction(1865–77). Title I of theact guarantees equalvoting rights by removingregistration requirementsand procedures biasedagainst minorities and theunderprivileged.

P0910 CIVIL RIGHTSRESOLUTION

WPS BOARD POLICY:

The Board of Educationhereby agrees to complywith Title IV and Title VIof the Civil Rights Act of1964, as amended, and allrequirements imposed by orpursuant to the regulationsof the Department ofEducation. The Board ofEducation further agrees tothe regulation that noperson in the United States(on the grounds of race,color, age, religion, sex,national origin, or handicap)shall be excluded from anyparticipation in, denied thebenefit of, or otherwisesubjected to discriminationunder any program, activity,or employment with UnifiedSchool District 259.

5. Teacher rights Pickering vs.Board ofEducation

1968 Pickering v. Board ofEducation, (1968),was acase in which the SupremeCourt of the United Statesheld that in the absenceof proof of the teacherknowingly or recklesslymaking false statementsthe teacher had a right tospeak on issues of publicimportance without beingdismissed from hisposition.

The school boardterminated the teacher,saying that the lettercontained false statementsthat impugned the integrityof the school system. Theteacher sued, claiming thatthe board violated his FirstAmendment rights byterminating him forexercising his right tofreedom of speech.

P1170 RULES OF ETHICALCONDUCT– EMPLOYEES

WPS BOARD POLICY:

The Board of Educationrecognizes that rules ofethical conduct for districtemployees must be observedif public confidence is to bemaintained in the schooldistrict. It is the intent ofthis policy to protect thepublic trust placed indistrict employees.Employees are prohibitedfrom engaging in anyactivity that wouldconstitute a violation of thispolicy.

P4025 EQUALOPPORTUNITYEMPLOYMENT

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Employment for eachspecific vacancy shall beoffered to the individualjudged best qualified forthe position with nodiscrimination with regardto race, color, religion, sex,national origin, or age, orpersons with disabilities. Inmeeting staffing needs, the



administration shall strive tomaintain an equitablebalance of employees in thevarious general categoriesof positions with regard torace, age, sex, and nationalorigin.

6. Student Rights

Tinker vs. DesMoines ISD

1969 According to court,wearing of symbols likethe armbands cannot beprohibited unless it"materially andsubstantially interfereswith the requirements ofappropriate discipline inthe operation of theschool." Result

1. In wearing armbands,the petitioners were quietand passive. They werenot disruptive and did notimpinge upon the rights ofothers. In thesecircumstances, theirconduct was within theprotection of the FreeSpeech Clause of the FirstAmendment and the DueProcess Clause of theFourteenth.

2. First Amendment rightsare available to teachersand students, subject toapplication in light of thespecial characteristics ofthe school environment.

3. A prohibition againstexpression of opinion,without any evidence thatthe rule is necessary toavoid substantialinterference with schooldiscipline or the rights ofothers, is not permissibleunder the First andFourteenth Amendments.

- Interfere in schoolbusiness

- Discipline Issues

- regulation waswithin the Board'spower

- get negativeattention forstudents

P1849 PUPIL RIGHTS ANDPARENTALINVOLVEMENT

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Instructional materials,including teachers’ manuals,films, tapes, or othersupplementary material whichwill be used in connectionwith a pupil’s educationalprogram shall be availablefor inspection by the lawfulcustodian.

Personal information from apupil in the specific areaslisted in AIP #1 and the planfor subsequent analysis andevaluation of that personalinformation shall beavailable for inspection bythe lawful custodian. Activewritten consent of the lawfulcustodian is required prior toparticipation by the pupil.

7. Religion Lemon vs.Kurtzman

1971 For a law to beconsidered constitutionalunder the EstablishmentClause of the FirstAmendment, the law musthave a legitimate secularpurpose, must not have theprimary effect of eitheradvancing or inhibitingreligion, and must notresult in an excessiveentanglement ofgovernment and religion.

- Pennsylvania's 1968NonpublicElementary andSecondaryEducation Act andlaw is constitutional

P1502 USE OF RELIGIOUSMATERIALS IN SCHOOLS

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Educational activities areprovided which developrespect for differentreligions, ethnic groups, andthe inherent worth of theindividual. Moral training byprecept and example isencouraged. Religiouseducation or observance is



not a function of the school.

8. Gender equity Title IX

EducationAmendment of1972

1972 Title IX of theEducation Amendmentsof 1972, now known asthe Patsy T. Mink EqualOpportunity in EducationAct in honor of itsprincipal author, but morecommonly known simply asTitle IX, is a 37-wordUnited States law enactedon June 23, 1972 thatstates: "No person in theUnited States shall, on thebasis of gender, beexcluded fromparticipation in, be deniedthe benefits of, or besubjected todiscrimination under anyeducation program oractivity receiving Federalfinancial assistance."

- P1119 HARASSMENT OFPUPILS BASED ONRACE, COLOR,RELIGION, GENDER,NATIONAL ORIGIN,OR DISABILITY

WPS BOARD POLICY:

USD #259 will not tolerateharassment or intimidation ofa pupil based on race, color,religion, gender, nationalorigin, or disability byanother pupil, employee orothers. Pupils and employeeswho violate this policy shall,after proper investigation,be subject to sanctionsincluding possible suspensionand/or expulsion of the pupiland termination of theemployee. Others who violatethis policy shall be reportedto local law enforcementagencies for investigation. Administrators who fail tofollow the policy or fail toinvestigate complaints shallalso be disciplined.

9. Accommodations Rehabilitation Actof 1973 (Section504) Americansw/ DisabilitiesAct

1973

1991

A civil rights law toprohibit discriminationsolely on the basis ofdisability in employment,public services, andaccommodations.

Who Is Protected?--Anyindividual with a disabilitywho: (1) has a physical ormental impairment thatsubstantially limits one ormore life activities; or (2)has a record of such animpairment; or (3) isregarded as having suchan impairment. Further,the person must bequalified for the program,service, or job.

The schools will give priorityto serving pupils whosespecial needs requireprograms presentlymandated, and to pupilswhose needs are most severe.Schools will providereasonable accommodation inall settings to pupils withidentified disabilities.

10. Student’s dueprocess

Goss vs. Lopez 1975 The U.S. Supreme Courtestablished that studentsare entitled to dueprocess prior tosuspension or expulsion.

- Disruption in schoolroutine

- complexity ofschools

P5403 DUE PROCESS ANDPROCEDURESRELATED TOACCESS TO ANDDENIAL OF



Due process proceedingsshould occur beforesuspension or expulsion,except when a student isan immediate danger tohimself or others. At aminimum, students must betold of the chargesagainst them and given anopportunity to respond tothe charges. The courtruled that the amount ofdue process afforded to astudent should becommensurate with thepotential penalty to beimposed.

The Supreme Courtdecided that students whoare suspended for 10 daysor less are entitled tocertain rights before theirsuspension. These rightsinclude: (1) oral or writtennotice of the charges, (2)an explanation (ifstudents deny thecharges) of the evidenceagainst them, and (3) anopportunity for studentsto present their side ofthe story.

- and the difficulttask of schooladministrators

- Section 3313.66 ofthe Code empowersthe principal of anOhio public schoolto suspend a pupilfor misconduct forup to 10 days or toexpel him.

SPECIALEDUCATIONSERVICES

WPS BOARD POLICY:

The authority to (1) exclude,reassign, or transfer a pupilfrom a regular school classon the grounds that the pupilis an exceptional pupil andcannot benefit materiallytherefrom, or (2) place apupil in, transfer to or from,or deny placement in specialeducation services, aresubject to the exercise ofdue process rights, isdelegated to appointedadministrative personnel bythe Board of Education inaccordance with applicablestate statutes.

The schools in UnifiedSchool District 259 are notrequired to keep anexceptional pupil in regularschool programs or toprovide such pupil withspecial education serviceswhen it is determined, inaccordance with due processprocedures, that theeducation of such pupilcannot be satisfactorilyachieved thereby and thatsuch pupil requires housing,maintenance, and specialeducation provided at a stateinstitution or privatecontract facility. Thedistrict, however, remainsresponsible for theeducation of eachexceptional pupil as long asthe lawful custodian resideswithin the USD 259boundaries

11. Book banning Board ofEducation vs. Pico

1982 Local school boards maynot remove books fromschool libraries simplybecause they dislike theideas contained in thosebooks and seek by theirremoval to "prescribewhat shall be orthodox inpolitics, nationalism,religion, or other mattersof opinion”.

The 1st Amendment limitsthe power of local schoolboards to remove librarybooks from junior highschools and high schools.

- May affect theschool environment

- Ethical issues

- Book’s content arenot related to school

- Local Board ofeducation discretion

Wichita public schools do nothave any specific rule inorder to comply with theparticular citation.



12. Special education

Board ofEducation vs.Rowley

1982 (1) Education for AllHandicapped ChildrenAct's requirement of a"free appropriate publiceducation" is satisfiedwhen state providespersonalized instructionwith sufficient supportservices to permit thehandicapped child tobenefit educationallyfrom that instruction; (2)Education for AllHandicapped ChildrenAct's requirement of a"free appropriate publiceducation" did not requirestate to maximize potentialof each handicapped childcommensurate withopportunity providednonhandicapped children; and (3) in light of findingthat deaf child, whoperformed better thanaverage child in her classand was advancing easilyfrom grade to grade, wasreceiving personalizedinstruction and relatedservices calculated byschool administrators tomeet her educationalneeds, Act did not requireprovision of asign‑language interpreterfor the deaf child.

- Education for allHandicappedchildren act

- Free andappropriateeducation

- Appropriateaccommodation forbeing successful inenvironment

P5427 CLASSSIZE/CASELOADSTANDARDS FOR

SPECIAL EDUCATION

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Federal law requires statesto monitor class-size andcaseloads for specialeducation personnel. TheKansas State Department ofEducation requirement is forlocal districts to developclass-size/caseloadprocedures that will ensure aFree Appropriate PublicEducation for exceptionalstudents.

I guess in all high schoolthey have bigger class sizesin interrelated classroom andit is a violation of the Law.

13. Search andSeizure

New Jersey vs.TLO

1985 The New Jersey Courtrelied on Supreme Courtof the United Statesprecedent to hold thatwhenever an "official"search violatesconstitutional rights, theevidence may not be usedin a criminal case.Furthermore, the SupremeCourt of New Jerseyfound that Choplick'ssearch was notreasonable. Merepossession of cigaretteswas not a violation ofschool rules; therefore, adesire for evidence ofsmoking in the restroom

- The Fourth Amendmentapplied to searches byschool officials, but thatthe search in question was areasonable one.

P1469 SEARCH ANDSEIZURE - SCHOOLFACILITIES

WPS BOARD POLICY:

The pupil has exclusivecontrol over his/her locker,desk, work station, and othersimilar assigned areas ofschool property as againstother pupils; but suchpossession is not exclusive asagainst the school and itsofficials. When a suspicionarises that a pupil is involved



smoking in the restroomdid not justify the search.In addition, the furthersearch of the purse wasnot justified by thepresence of cigaretterolling papers.

in illegal, illicit, or disruptivebehavior, the principal hasthe authority to conduct asearch and confiscate itemsconsidered illegal, illicit,disruptive, or a generalnuisance to the educationalprocess.

14. Student rights Bethel SD vs.Frazier

1986 The First Amendment, asapplied through theFourteenth, permits apublic school to punish astudent for giving a lewdand indecent, but notobscene, speech at aschool assembly. NinthCircuit reversed andremanded. Finally, it wasdecided that schooldistrict's policy did notviolate the FirstAmendment.

- Violation of his FirstAmendment right to freespeech

P1849 PUPIL RIGHTS ANDPARENTALINVOLVEMENT

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Instructional materials,including teachers’ manuals,films, tapes, or othersupplementary material whichwill be used in connectionwith a pupil’s educationalprogram shall be availablefor inspection by the lawfulcustodian.

Personal information from apupil in the specific areaslisted in AIP #1 and the planfor subsequent analysis andevaluation of that personalinformation shall beavailable for inspection bythe lawful custodian. Activewritten consent of the lawfulcustodian is required prior toparticipation by the pupil.

15. Teacher rights O’Conner vs.Ortega

1987 Searches and seizures bygovernment employers orsupervisors of the privateproperty of theiremployees are subject toFourth Amendmentrestraints. In the decision,the Court of Appealsconcluded that respondenthad a reasonableexpectation of privacy inhis office, and that thesearch violated the FourthAmendment.

- Search was properbecause there was a need tosecure state property in theoffice.

P1470 SEARCH ANDSEIZURE - PUPILSAND THEIRPERSONALPOSSESSIONS

WPS BOARD POLICY:

The pupil has exclusivecontrol over property inhis/her immediate possessionas against other pupils; butsuch possession may not beexclusive against the schooland its officials. When areasonable suspicion arisesthat use or possession of apupil’s property is illegal,illicit, disruptive, or a dangerto the general welfare ofpupils and staff, a searchmay be made of the pupil’sperson or personal property.

16. Testing andGraduation

Debra P. vs.Turlington

1979 In the landmark Debra P. v.Turlington case, African-American students whohad failed a statewide test

- Same graduationtest for everybody

- Equal opportunity topass the test

Wichita public school doesn’thave testing requirementthough some school requiresenior projects.



required for a diploma inFlorida challenged thetesting requirement asracially based, given toaffected students withoutadequate notice, anddesigned to resegregateAfrican-American studentsinto remedial classes. TheFlorida high schoolgraduation test was amultiple-choice test ofbasic communication andmathematics skills appliedto real-life situations. In1979, after the test hadbeen administered threetimes, approximately 2percent of the whiteseniors had not passed,compared to approximately20 percent of the African-American seniors.

The Debra P. caseestablished two majorrequirements for diplomasanction testing: adequatenotice and curricularvalidity. Adequate noticerequires that students betold what a graduation testwill cover several yearsbefore the test isimplemented. Curricularvalidity means that theschools are teaching whatis being tested; underDebra P., the state mustcollect data todemonstrate curricularvalidity.

pass the test

17. Censorship Hazelwood SD vs.Kuhlemeier

1988 Believing that there wasno time to make necessarychanges in the articles ifthe paper was to be issuedbefore the end of theschool year, the principaldirected that the pages onwhich they appeared bewithheld from publicationeven though other,unobjectionable articleswere included on suchpages. The District Courtheld that no FirstAmendment violation hadoccurred. The Court ofAppeals reversed.

- freedom of speech orexpression at theschoolhouse gate

P2120 DISTRIBUTION OFPUBLISHED MATERIAL ONPUBLIC SCHOOL GROUNDS

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Principals shall beresponsible for all materialsdistributed at schools. Ingeneral, the principal mayrefuse to permit the saleand/or distribution of anyliterature which seeks to sellcommercial products for thegain of outside interests;seeks to promote a cause thatwould disrupt a school’sacademic program or theestablished rules of theschool; seeks under the guiseof "Freedom of Speech" toridicule or embarrass facultymembers, administrators, ormembers of the studentbody; or seeks to violate the



principles contained in theStatement of Freedom of theHigh School Press(Journalism EducationalAssociation, 1974).

18. Special Education IDEA 1997 IDEA is our nation's

special education law.IDEA stands forIndividuals withDisabilities Education Act.

The IDEA was originallyenacted by Congress in1975 to make sure thatchildren with disabilitieshad the opportunity toreceive a free appropriatepublic education, just likeother children. The lawhas been revised manytimes over the years. Themost recent amendmentswere passed by Congressin December 2004, withfinal regulations publishedin August 2006. So, insome senses, the law isvery new, even as it has along, detailed, andpowerful history.

P5400 GENERAL POLICIESFOR SPECIALEDUCATION

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Unified School District 259will provide specialeducation programs toidentify and serveexceptional pupils inaccordance with currentstate statutes andregulations.

19. Church and State Agostini vs. Felton 1997 According to the court inAgostini v. Felton case,Title I instructionalservices may be providedby public schoolemployees in privateschools without violatingthe Establishment Clause.

By allowing public schoolemployees in privateschools, the Court expresslyoverruled its 1985 decisionin Aguilar v. Felton (1985).I guess temptation ofinculcating religion in publicschool may be a negativeeffect and it was one of thebiggest argument in thecase.

There have recently been anumber of cases involving theissues of vouchers and publicfunding of parochial (privatereligious) schools and theSupreme Court's decision inAgostini vs. Felton (seeabove) was widely regardedas creating a more favorableclimate for increased publicsupport of parochial schools

19. (Peer and Adult)Sexual Harassment

Monroe vs.Davis

1999 Petitioner seekingdamages for the sexualharassment of herdaughter LaShonda byG. F., a fifth-gradeclassmate at a publicelementary school.Among other things,petitioner alleged thatrespondents’ deliberateindifference to G. F.’spersistent sexual

- Violation of Title IX ofthe Education Amendmentsof 1972

P1116 SEXUAL HARASSMENTOF PUPILS

WPS BOARD POLICY:

USD 259 will not toleratesexual harassment of a pupilby another pupil, employee, orothers. Violation of this policyshall result in disciplinaryaction against any pupil oremployee involved, including



persistent sexualadvances towardLaShonda created anintimidating, hostile,offensive, and abusiveschool environment thatviolated Title IX of theEducation Amendmentsof 1972, which, inrelevant part, prohibitsa student from being“excluded fromparticipation in, be[ing]denied the benefits of,or be[ing] subjected todiscrimination underany education programor activity receivingFederal financialassistance,”. Ingranting respondents’motion to dismiss, theFederal District Courtfound that “student-on-student,” or peer,harassment provides noground for a Title IXprivate cause of actionfor damages.

possible expulsion of thepupil and termination of theemployee. Others who violatethis policy shall be reportedto local law enforcementauthorities for appropriateaction and may be prohibitedfrom being on school propertyand/or attending schoolactivities. Administrators whofail to follow the policy orfail to investigate complaintsshall also be disciplined.

20. Teacher Rights(sexual orientation)

Merrick vs. RioBravo-GreeleyUnion SchoolDistrict

1999 A school districtillegally bowed toparents'requests to remove 15pupils from theclassroom of apurportedly gayteacher, a stateofficial said andordered the youngstersreturned tohis class. By grantingthe requests, thedistrict wrongfullyfostereddifferent treatmenttoward the eight-gradescience teacher based"upon (his) perceivedsexual orientation,ruling requires the RioBravo-Greeley UnionSchool District toreturnthe pupils to theclassroom of James D.Merrick, a formerteacher ofthe year in Bakersfield.Merrick, a teacher for40 years, was hiredby the district in 1994.He has neither said heis gay nor denied it.

- Mistreatment of teacher Wichita public school haveethical standard for all staffsbut there is nothing inparticular about Sexualorientation.



21. School prayer atfootball games

Santa Fe ISDvs. Doe

2000

The District's policypermitting student-led,student-initiatedprayer at footballgames violates theEstablishment Clause.

- Free speech right

- Religious right

P1502 USE OF RELIGIOUSMATERIALS IN SCHOOLS

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Educational activities areprovided which developrespect for differentreligions, ethnic groups, andthe inherent worth of theindividual. Moral training byprecept and example isencouraged. Religiouseducation or observance is nota function of the school.

22. IEP’s Amanda C. v.

Clark Co Sch.Dist. & NevadaDept. of Ed.

2001 The court found thatthe school district mis-identified Amanda asdevelopmentallydelayed. The court alsofound that ClarkCounty violated theparent’s rights. Theschool psychologist didnot inform the parentsthat their child hadcharacteristics ofautism. The schooldistrict failed toprovide the parentswith copies of theirchild’s evaluations.Amanda did not beginto receive an in-homeintervention programuntil April, 1996.

- procedural issues

- The districtprovidedappropriate support

P5402 PROVISION OF LEASTRESTRICTIVEENVIRONMENT FORDISABLED PUPILS

WPS BOARD POLICY:

Provision for pupils identifiedas disabled will be made toensure the pupil is in anenvironment that allowsappropriate placementcompatible with the pupil’sabilities.

23. Privacy Falvo vs.Owasso ISD

2002 Ruling for the schooldistrict, the SupremeCourt held thatallowing students toscore each other'stests and call out thegrades does not violatethe Family EducationalRights and Privacy Actof 1974 (FERPA).

- Call out the grades doesviolate the FamilyEducational Rights andPrivacy Act of 1974(FERPA).

In accordance with the KansasOpen Records Act (K.S.A. § 45-215, et seq.), school districtrecords shall be open forinspection by any person,except as otherwise providedby law.

Personal information from apupil in the specific areaslisted in AIP #1 and the planfor subsequent analysis andevaluation of that personalinformation shall be availablefor inspection by the lawfulcustodian. Active writtenconsent of the lawfulcustodian is required prior toparticipation by the pupil.

24. Vouchers Zelman v.

Simmons-Harris, et.al.

2002 The Supreme Courtruled that the Ohioprogram did not violatethe EstablishmentClause of the FirstAmendment to theUnited StatesConstitution, because itpassed a five part testdeveloped by the Court

- Violation of EstablishmentClause of the FirstAmendment

Wichita Public school doesn’thave any section aboutvouchers.



in this case, titled thePrivate Choice



Case Law Matrix

Documents

Transcript of Case Law Matrix