Banned Books at Time.com

Time has a list of banned books and the controversy surrounding them on their website (click next in gray bar to see more).

Some surprises in there including a couple of children's books.

                                                               

Education 2.0

Whenever I present on educational law I almost always run into questions about educational technology. I have even presented on that specific topic: Educational Law in Light of the Technological Revolution. So, it was no surprise last week when myself and some colleagues were presenting to a group of women administrators that a question came up on the law related to educational technology. What always strikes me, however, about the types of questions that administrators ask is how out-of-touch they really are. For instance, just this last week, the question revolved around teacher speech and the Internet, specifically blogs. While that is a good and relevant question that we did our best to answer, the administrators on hand were slow to acknowledge that teachers actually had blogs or MySpace pages. Umm, yes, they do. Not only that, but many administrators themselves have blogs.

So, not like this will reduce the number of questions, but I want to point my readers to four videos that will start to give you an idea of just how much the world is changing around us. It takes about 30 min. to watch them all, and I gave links to places where you can find more videos on the subject.

Did You Know 2.0

Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing Us.

A Vision of Students Today

2020 Vision

And that is just the beginning. There is a lot more video content available at the Moving Forward Wiki.

Tom F. Case Already Published

In what has to be some sort of land speed record, the Supreme Court has already published the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F. case.

Here is the full text of the opinion:

PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE KENNEDY took no part in the decision of this case.

I am not exactly sure why Justice Kennedy recused himself in this case, but his crucial role of the swing vote was eliminated and the court found itself equally divided, 4 votes for the school and 4 votes for the parents. Since the last Appellate Ruling was for the parents, that decision was not overruled.

                                                                     

I will update with more analysis links and will provide my own analysis at a later date, so check back.

N.Y. Times

SCOTUS Blog

Jurist.com

Teacher Suing to Carry Gun in School

Sort of a shocking story out of Oregon yesterday:

MEDFORD, Ore. - High school English teacher
Shirley Katz insists she needs to take her pistol to work because she
fears her ex-husband could show up and try to harm her. She’s also
worried about a Columbine-style attack.

But
Katz’s district has barred teachers from bringing guns to school, so
she is challenging the ban as unlawful, since Oregon is among states
that allow people with a permit to carry concealed weapons into public
buildings.

“This
is primarily about my Second Amendment right and Oregon law and the
simple fact that I know it is my right to carry that gun,” said Katz,
44, ...

          Continue Reading.

I almost don't even know where to begin with this. For one, she cites the Second Amendment in support of her claim. Really? After Garcetti, teachers in the employment of a public school barely have First Amendment rights! That is a pretty ridiculous argument. There are so many reasons why the government would have a compelling interest in limiting her Second Amendment right to bear arms that I am not even going to get into them all.

Next, if we say schools are a safe environment for kids (and we do), why is she worried about her ex-husband somehow breaking into the school and bullying her. What is that saying to the parents of the community? This school is so unsafe that I need my own personal weapon to protect me ... but please, continue sending your children.

                                                                 

Finally, I have to seriously question the fitness to teach of any individual who would want to bring a gun into school. What is the purpose of a gun in this situation if not to kill people? The gun she intends to carry is pictured and if she ever brought that to school, as a principal or superintendent I would immediately fire her.

More on Board of Education of the City of New York v. Tom F.: Oral Argument

As promised, here is a little more on the Oral Argument at
the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Education of the City of New York v.
Tom F.

                                                                            

Jim Gerl's Analysis at the Special Education Law Blog:

When the oral argument began,
Justice Kennedy left the Courtroom. Apparently he recused himself from the case
and will not take part in the decision. The most active questioners were
Justices Alito, Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts. Souter and Ginsburg asked a
few questions, and Bryer, Stevens only asked about one area each. Thomas said nothing,
although at one point he and Bryer had a very polite private conversation for
few moments. I was more surprised by their civility than anything.



The thrust of the questions from Alito, Scalia and Roberts to the school
district attorney concerned what purpose could be served by reading the statute
to mean that Congress meant to require that a student with a disability be kept
in an inappropriate placement for just a short period of time.



The questions that Alito, Scalia and Roberts asked of the parents' attorney and
the Solicitor General (who argued in favor of the parents' position) centered
on whether the language used by Congress was really ambiguous and whether the
intent of Congress was to keep "well-healed" parents who have no real
intention of putting their children in public school from obtaining
reimbursement.

Read More ...

Oral Argument Transcript: Here



Legal Podcast by Ruth
Colker a Professor at Ohio State. Audio.



Debra Cassins Weiss at
the ABA Journal thinks the court
is leaning to denying parents the tuition reimbursement as many wealthy parents
would send their child to private school anyway.

PBS Newshour Analysis by Marcia Coyle (Video & Audio
Available).



****



Also, Justice Kennedy recused himself from the oral arguments and the case.
Combined with a court official's heads up to an artist, this is spurring rumors
of an imminent departure from the bench. Here is the blurb in Legal Times.

Kennedy recused himself in the Tom
F. arguments, quietly slipping out of his chair and out of the courtroom in
the short lull between the two arguments. Justices very rarely give
explanations for recusal and the reason behind Kennedy's decision to recuse in
this case was not widely known. A Court official gave a friendly heads-up to an
artist starting a courtroom sketch before the justices took the bench, telling
her to be sure to draw Kennedy during the first hour of argument.

First Amendment Notes

Couple of school related First Amendment notes to pass along.

First, the Supreme Court this week denied review of the Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corporation Case. The Education Law and Policy Blog has more on the details of the case. I am sort of disappointed the Supreme Court denied this case. Following Garcetti v. Ceballos we really could use some more clarity on the free speech rights of teachers related to their employment. The Supreme Court passed on this opportunity, but let's hope they take another in the near future. There is sure to be plenty of cases emerging in the courts when a teacher can be fired for off-hand and everyday comments like "I honk for peace."

Second, Mitchell Rubinstein at the Adjunct Law Prof. Blog has the scoop on the E.D. of Missouri in the 8th Circuit upholding a school's ban on wearing items related to the Confederate Flag (B.W.A. v. Farmington R-7 School District). This is not the first court to hold this way, but it is significant that in the wake of Morse v. Frederick ... nothing really seems to have changed. But, perhaps something is changing. This interesting quote is how Mitchell ends the entry:

Recently, there seems to have been an increase in First Amendment
student rights litigation. A pattern seems to be emerging in the case
law, including the recent Morse v. Frederick decision, where courts are
essentially applying a balancing test-balancing the reduced First
Amendment rights of students against the need to prevent a disruption
and prevent disruption of vulgar material. This type of balancing test
is no different than in other areas of constitutional law. In fact, it
bears resemblance to the Pickering balance test in public sector First
Amendment employment cases without the public concern requirement.

I am not sure I totally agree ... yet anyway. Traditionally, the First Amendment for student speech rights concerning on-campus speech has followed a series of steps, with each step asking a slightly different question which would allow the school to regulate. If a student could survive all those steps, the speech was protected and the school could not regulate. At the end of that series of steps was the Tinker v. Des Moines disruption standard. Generally, if the speech could be considered disruptive, the school could regulate. That series of steps seems to me to still be very firmly in place.

However, I will agree with Mitchell on this point. Recent student First Amendment cases have been less explicit about how they passed through the series of steps than ones in the past have been. Recent cases, including Morse to a degree, have been simply jumping to the step in the multiple part test that is crucial to determining the outcome without providing a full explanation of how they arrived there. Typically, the author of the opinion briefly mentions the "trilogy" (now a quartet) of Supreme Court cases (even though Hazelwood and Tinker almost never apply to the same case) and then goes immediately to the issue of law he or she thinks is crucial to determining the outcome. Once a series of cases is written this way, it can quickly become a trend as Justices look to recent precedent not only for the law but also in how to write the opinion. Thus, the full scope of the student on-campus First Amendment multiple-part test is lost and it can appear to be something akin to a balancing of disruptions (that of the school and that of the First Amendment).

More Economists Suggesting Greater Investment in Education

My daily reading brought me across another interesting article today related to education and economics. In George Will's Washington Post Editorial today, he has a profile of the young economist Austan Goolsbee who is both an economics professor at the University of Chicago and an advisor to the Sen. Barack Obama campaign for President. Other than being an interesting article about a young economist with a very bright future, it is relevant to this blog because of this:

In 1980, people with college degrees made on average 30 percent more
than those with only high school diplomas. That disparity has widened
to 70 percent. In the same year, the average earnings of people with
advanced degrees were 50 percent more than those with only high school
diplomas; today, it is more than 100 percent.

The market is shouting "Stay in school!" and Goolsbee's conservative colleagues at Chicago
say a high tax rate on high earners is "a tax on going to college."
Conservatives say: Don't tax something unless you are willing to have
less of it. But Goolsbee says: Conservatives often exaggerate the
behavioral response to increased tax rates. The solution is to invest
more in education, which will raise wages, reduce inequality and move
toward equilibrium. The GI Bill was, he says, so prolific in
stimulating investment in "human capital" -- particularly, college
education -- that for a while the return on it went down relative to
high school.

This is the second influential economist in less than a month to laud the economic benefits of education, as you will remember Fed. Chair Ben Bernanke did so not long ago. While the simple statement that "education is a good investment" is repeated time and again, these types of recent statements by Goolsbee and Bernanke signal the possibility of a shifting view toward national and state investment in education as a long term profitable enterprise for government. How such a shift in economic views toward education's economic benefit on society will affect education in the short or long term is unclear, but given the relative importance of such economists on the fiscal allocations of this country ... it cannot hurt.

Search and Seizure Poll

Scott McLeod's recent post at Dangerously Irrelevant, which I linked to yesterday, got me wondering how people perceive the extent of searching going on in schools. So, I thought I would ask you ... what do you think?

Poll:

School Administrators Taking Search & Seizure too Far?

Great post today at Dangerously Irrelevant on what the Fourth Amendment should mean to school leaders. First, Scott lays out all the ways that we are or can be monitoring our school children's every move in schools. Then, he presents an interesting question of just how frequently do school administrators trample on the Fourth Amendment in the name of school safety? I, like Scott, believe it happens far too often and is something that educational law instructors need to focus on more heavily when teaching about search and seizure in preparation programs.

Alcohol Testing at Carmel Before Games

I came across this article and found it to be very
interesting.   Carmel High School is now
testing students for alcohol use before games.  
According to school authorities, there has not been an increase in
alcohol problems at the football games. 
They are not testing students when they have a reasonable suspicion of
alcohol use, but instead they are testing all
students before entering the game because Carmel wants to utilize the
technology that is available to them.   It
is possible that these breathalyzer tests abridge the students’ Fourth
Amendment rights and constitute an unreasonable search.

Here is a link to a Fox 59, Indianapolis story on the Carmel High School Breathalyzer testing. Link

                                 

Guestblogger: Jennifer M. Hesch, Associate Instructor & J.D. Candidate '08, Indiana University

Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York v. Tom F.: Oral Argument Today

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a special education case regarding public school tutition reimbursement for private school tuition in the case of Board of Education of the City of New York v. Tom F. As with many cases in special education, this one is somewhat complicated and relies heavily on the langugage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, particularly 20
U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). Basically, in question is whether or not a child must actually attend a public school placement (give it a try) before he or she is entitled to private school tutition reimbursement from the public school. The Second Circuit has already ruled in favor of the parent. School groups are claiming it would put an additional burden on already tight special education funds while advocacy groups are arguing the provision of such reimbursement is necessary to better serve special education students.

                                                           

It should be an interesting case.

A full brief of the case is provided by the Legal Information Institute Bulliten (who did a very nice job and we appreciate the service).

And, my friend Jim Gerl at The Special Education Law Blog will be at the Supreme Court tomorrow and will have analysis afterward, so be sure to check his site.

ECS Reauthorization Database

Stumbled across this a couple of days ago and I just wanted to pass along the link. I am getting a lot of questions from school personnel lately regarding the reauthorization and what different groups are saying ... and, the Education Commission of the States and their top notch policy analyst Mary Fulton have put together a database on just that issue. So here are the links:

No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Database

And from the ECS Press Release:

According
to the ECS synthesis and analysis of 15 key education policy
stakeholders across 16 issues, the greatest collective agreement
emerged in the following areas:

• Allow growth models for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
• Provide more flexibility for students with disabilities and English Language Learners (ELL)
• Provide adequate funding to support NCLB requirements
• Build state and local capacity to assist low-performing schools
• Offer high-quality professional development
• Target assistance and interventions to the highest-need schools and students

And, finally, ECS has a Reauthorization Survey that you can take or direct your friends to take.

Interesting Article on Saint Louis Public School's Longtime Lawyer

                                                 

Really interesting read tonight about Saint Louis Public Schools and the longtime legal counsel they employed. You can read the full article here, but I wanted to pull out some of the more interesting quotes:

In the last four years alone, records show that the St. Louis Public
Schools have spent almost $11 million on legal services, a figure that
works out, on average, to $75 per student a year. Most of that went to
Brostron and his law firm. That per-student average is twice, or even 10 times, what legal fees cost taxpayers in school districts across the country.

So is it twice or 10 times? That is a pretty big difference. If anyone out there has solid numbers of what we are paying per child in legal fees, please comment and direct me to them.

As in many urban districts, the lawyers became the institutional memory
in a district that chewed up board members and administrators every
year, leaders and experts said.

But that also caused controversy.

"The most powerful person sitting at the table is legal counsel," said
Robert Archibald, president of the Missouri Historical Society and a
former board member. "And that's probably not appropriate. No, not
probably — that's not appropriate."

This certainly raises an interesting question/issue about the institutional memory of school district lawyers. Part of me thinks keeping the institutional record is sort of what we pay them to do ... but the question of appropriateness is a legitimate one given they are not publically elected nor directly overseen by a school board. Which brings us to how Saint Louis Public Schools intend to address this issue...

Now Brostron's time is done. With little fanfare, the Special
Administrative Board overseeing the district replaced Lashly & Baer
last week with an in-house general counsel who will be paid a flat fee
of $100,000 a year to dispense day-to-day legal advice.

Again, we see another district moving to in-house counsel (this seems to be a rapidly developing phenomena and one worthy of some research to determine just how quickly schools across the country are moving to in-house counsels).

In December, even as the elected School Board bickered over the
prospect of state intervention, an advisory committee reviewed the
district's checkbook.

The district, it said, had overspent by $96 million over five years and was at that point $30 million in the hole.

Legal fees can hardly be blamed for the deficit. Last year, Lashly
& Baer's bills didn't even represent 1 percent of the district's
$350 million budget.

But they didn't help.

In three of the last four years, the district has blown its legal
services budget by several thousand dollars. Last year, the district
set aside $1.8 million for lawyers. It spent $2.8 million on legal fees.

At the same time, the district bought just $236,000 worth of library books.

That is never good publicity. I do wonder, however, about a couple of things. First, even at $250/hour, it takes a heck of a lot of hours to total $2.8 million. Now that the city schools have dropped their law firm, do they really expect 1 person being paid $100,000 can accomplish the same amount of work? Second, the 1% of the $350 million dollar budget that was going to lawyers seems like a small percentage. But, I would wonder how much of that $350 million was going to administrators? If we did a better job of training administrators to deal with the day to day legal issues, we could save significantly on legal costs as much of the $2.8 million was generated dealing with administrator phone calls...

Sullivan hopes having a lawyer in-house will save the schools money.

Lashly & Baer billing statements show that district leaders called
the firm time and again for advice on meeting agendas, hiring
practices, filing paperwork, board officer elections and the effects of
pending legislation.

When board members wanted advice, they called the firm. When board
business became contentious, members called Brostron. And if they just
wanted to sideline board business for awhile, they could refer it to
Lashly & Baer.

For instance, in the winter of 2006, then-board president Veronica
O'Brien said, the elected school board was so deeply divided that she
contacted Brostron on nearly every issue.

"I talk to him all the time, 24 hours a day," O'Brien said then. "I use him for everything."

Over a three-day period in November, her name appears six times on the
billing statements, connected to more than $6,500 in charges, including
one listing for "multiple telephone conferences with Ms. O'Brien
regarding records."

Very interesting stuff there. Raises a lot of questions about schools and their lawyers that need further investigation.

Here is a link to Saint Louis Public Schools and their former Legal Counsel, Lashly and Baer.

Fed Chair Bernanke: Education is a Good Investment

If you are reading this blog, you probably already know that education
is a good investment because most readers have devoted their life to
education in some form or another. But, just in case you had any
remaining doubts, the nation's top economist has confirmed your
suspicions.

         

 Education is the best investment not only for workers but also for the
economy in a time of continuing competitive strain, Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday.

"Education lifelong education for everyone from toddlers to
workers well advanced in their careers is indeed an excellent
investment for individuals and society as a whole," said Bernanke. He
spent most of his professional life as a teacher and is married to one. ...

Although the United States has long been a leader in expanding
educational opportunities, it also has long grappled with challenges
such as troubling high-school dropout rates, particularly for minority
and immigrant youths, as well as frustratingly slow and uneven progress
in raising test scores, he said.

Continue Reading

While
this comes as no surprise to educators or lawyers that work for
educators, apparently in some of the nation's governing bodies this
fact is not so clear ... as schools are consistently underfunded and
the price of higher education is continuing to rise beyond the
affordability point for many young Americans even at public schools.
So, next time you are in a debate about school funding ... know that
you have the economists on your side.

9th Circuit Strip Search Case: Redding v. Stafford

The Adjunt Law Prof Blog has the scoop this morning on a 9th Circuit case which upheld the use of a strip search in K-12 schools. In the case of Redding v. Stafford Unified School Dist. out of Arizona, two students were subjected to a strip search after the principal of the school had a tips regarding some students bringing illegal prescription drugs on campus. The 9th Circuit went through the New Jersey v. T.L.O. criteria in determining that the strip search was both justified at its inception and was justified in scope under the reasonable suspicion standard.

After reading the case, I have to disagree with the majority in this case. I echo the dissenting thoughts of Justice Thomas:

I must respectfully part company from my friends in the

majority. As we have said “[i]t does not require a constitutional

scholar to conclude that a nude search of a thirteenyear-

old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some

magnitude. More than that: it is a violation of any known

principle of human dignity.” Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d

808, 819 (9th Cir. 1999).

Thirteen-year-old Savana Redding, an honor roll student

with no prior disciplinary problems, was required to strip,

exposing her breasts and pubic area, in a fruitless search for

— at worst — prescription strength ibuprofen. Savana had no

history of drug involvement of any type, nor was she alleged

to have any connection to illegal drug distribution. Rather,

school officials based their actions entirely on uncorroborated

statement by a student that Savana had given her a few ibuprofen

tablets. The school officials did not suspect that the

pills were something other than ibuprofen. The nurse recognized

the pill immediately as an ibuprofen tablet. At no point

did the school officials ask Savana’s mother to be present for

the search, nor did they permit Savana to call her mother or

any other relative during her two and a half hour detention.

School officials discovered nothing in the search. Given these

circumstances, I would hold that the unwarranted intrusion on

Savana’s privacy violated the Fourth Amendment.

How can a strip search of a 13 year old be considered reasonable in scope when searching for Ibuprofen? Sure, having and passing out prescription drugs is wrong and the search of the backpack was fine. But was it necessary to strip search her? How about searching her locker first or calling her parent ... or calling the cops? Any of these methods would have been more reasonable in scope and likely more productive in obtaining any illegal drugs and/or reprimanding the offending student. I personally feel this is clearly outside the bounds of the Constitution and even further outside the bounds of common sense. I continue to urge school administrators to refrain from strip searches of students of any age. If the search is that important that it is necessary to expose the most private parts of a student's body, it is important enough to get the police involved. The court may have found the school administrator's conduct legal in this case, but that does not mean it was ethical and that also does not mean it was the best available action in response to the incident.

Jena Case, Taser Case

I have been asked by many students lately about both the Jena case out of Louisiana and the Taser case out of Florida, so I decided to post a few videos about both of these incidents, which both related to education law. So much for the slow education law days of August.

First, on the Jena case:

Here is a video about the case generally by NBC:

Here is a more recent clip about the latest developments:

Second, a little video on the tasering incident at a John Kerry speech at the University of Florida:

First I suggest you watch either or both of these videos from news sites on the incident:

CNN News

ABC News

Then, if you desire, here is a full and uncut video of the incident (note: this video is graphic with some bad language and violence):

Dr. John Jackson Lecture - Advocacy and Education

I just got back from a lecture by Dr. John Jackson, the current President of the Schott Foundation for Public Education. The speech was sponsored by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, so thanks to them.

Just a few reflections to share:

1. Dr. Jackson spoke of making education a fundamental right, as a legal matter (Dr. Jackson is also a J.D. from U. of Illinois). I really feel the movement to make education a fundamental right is growing. He is not the first person I heard speak about this lately and don't be surprised if in a few years there is serious progress toward that goal. (Also see my earlier post about the Great Civil Rights Issue of Our Time).
   
2. Dr. Jackson also addressed the way we define "drop-out" or "graduation rate" within NCLB and the need to establish a federal definition of those terms. Presently, these terms are addressed state-by-state, so the definitions tend to vary. This variance is hiding drop-outs in many cases. He offered the possible definition of measuring drop-outs by the number of kids that enter as freshmen in high school and the number that graduate after 4 (or 5) years. Seems reasonable, right? Well, although any definition would have to be more complicated to account for various issues such as transfers, etc., the fundamental principle of counting how many kids are leaving the system is a valid one, and one I would hope would be included in this round of NCLB. Perhaps the federal governmental could adopt some different language (other than the politically charged "drop-out" or "graduation rate" language) to achieve the same goal.
   
3. The next two points are related. First, Dr. Jackson made "advocacy" a central theme of his presentation. That everyone has their place to advocate within this system and that it is part of their role as educators or educational leaders. I cannot stress how much I agree with this point. The educational system is built upon democratic systems. Democratic systems, in their very nature, rely on voices of the people (without the people and their voices, there would be no government - that is the point). If the people's voices are not heard, the system ceases to function effectively. Will many competing voices cause conflicts? Of course, but conflict is encouraged within democratic systems. If advocacy was encouraged more and made a central function of the job of educators, education would be much better off.
   
4. There is a reason I agree with Dr. Jackson on point 3, above. It is because we have similar backgrounds in law and education. If you have not had the pleasure of law school (avoid at all costs), it is hard to know what goes on there. But, let me just say this - there is no way you can make it through law school without a deep understanding (although, perhaps, still be unable to articulate it) of how power works in a capitalist-based democracy. A few days working with the education system and even a young lawyer will quickly realize why there is so little power in the system. For the most part, educators don't even know there is a game, let alone the rules of the game, and very, very few educators actually play the game in any meaningful way. Legislators, lobbyists, CEO's and others with power in the system are free to ignore the education system, and, especially educators, who are not even on the sidelines watching the game (take a poll of the educators in your local school tomorrow to see how many know NCLB Reauthorization Hearings are going on right now). So, wanna know how to play the game? Advocacy.
   

NCLB Reauthorization Hearings Begin & Countdown Widget

Well, the hearings on NCLB Reauthorization have begun. You can the watch the initial House Committee Hearing online here.

Also, the NY Times documents the various groups that have already spoken up in opposition to various parts of the law, which the School and Education Law Blog noted earlier.

And, finally, not to increase the pressure, but I created a NCLB Expiration Countdown which I posted in the sidebar. We are already closer to expiration than I thought.

Upgrades to Podcasting Capability

My blog host has decided that they need to have Podcasting capability, which is fine with me, however they decided to stop supporting some designs during this change over. Unfortunately, the design I was using was one of the ones that got cut (and I know you all loved it so). Anyway, over the next couple of days the site will undergo various changes mostly to the design. During this time, you should still be able to read posts and search.

After this upgrade is complete, I am really anxious to introduce some new features I have been working on. Just a hint, some involve widgets! (No seriously, there is such a thing as widgets on the Internet, they are not just fictional products in law schools). There will also be some more basic information about the authors and a blogroll (finally).

Anyway, thank you in advance for your patience as we transition.

-- Justin

Gabcast! Edjurist Podcasts #0

Odd Search & Seizure Case from Illinois: Dean Enters Home Looking for Evidence with Mother in Shower

This is one of the odder search and seizure cases I have
seen. The case comes from Illinois. Apparently, a school Dean was looking for
evidence from a previous incident at school. To obtain this evidence, the Dean
had one of his students take him to the student's house and let him in. While
the student's mother was in the shower, the Dean found the knife he was looking
for, took it, and left. All without notifying the student's mother. Here is the
Sun-Times account of the facts:

He was looking for a knife Tyler
D'Allesandro, then 12, said he had inadvertently taken to school in 2006. Tyler
said he doesn't know how the knife from his father's workshop got into his
school bag.

But the Indian Trail Junior High
student noticed it there and pointed it out to his friend. The friend took it,
and then a third boy, whom Tyler did not know, grabbed it and brandished it
toward other students "in a menacing manner," according to a federal
lawsuit the family filed.

Tyler's friend put the knife back in
the school bag. Tyler went home thinking the incident was over. That was on
Friday, Sept. 22, of last year.

But on the following Monday morning,
a parent complained to the school's dean, Michael Brumbaugh. According to the
lawsuit, Brumbaugh drove Tyler home and told Tyler to let him in. Tyler's
mother, Kelly D'Allesandro, was inside taking a shower, and Brumbaugh knew
that, the suit said.

Continued: Here is the URL of the Sun Times Story (sorry, hyperlinking to this
article did not work, copy and paste): http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/548369,CST-NWS-knife09.article




What an odd search on the part of the school Dean. Even with the student's
permission, entering the student's home (even if no one was home) seems clearly
out of line (so much so, I would imagine immunity would be out of the question,
as may indemnity). I know we have zero-tolerance policies against knifes, but
this is over the line. If he wanted that knife that badly, how about calling
the cops and getting a warrant? Or, here is a radical idea, how about calling
the student's parents first and asking them?