Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Student has Right to Appeal

Oceanside High School Student Handbook 2014/15

Long–Term Suspension

Prior to the suspension:

Short–Term Suspension

Long–Term Suspension

Six or more days

Five or Less Days

  • Student/Parents must be given the opportunity to a “3214 hearing” with “reasonable notice”.
  • Notice must give sufficient information to advise student/counsel of the proceedings forming the basis for the hearing allowing for an effective defense.
  • Burden of proof rests on the school district. Suspension must be based on competent and substantial evidence.
  • Hearsay evidence is admissible. Witnesses who provide written statements must be made available for cross examination.

NYS Commissioner’s Regulations

  • Prior to the suspension:
  • Student must receive notice of the charges.
  • If student denies the charges, school must provide an explanation of the basis for suspension.
  • Parents must be given written notice describing the incident and notify them of their right to an informal conference with Principal.
  • Student/parents must be given notice of their right to question witnesses at conference.
  • Informal conference must take place.

  • Considered a deprivation of a student’s property and/or liberty interests protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  • Student must be given a hearing, notice of charges against them, an opportunity to hear evidence against them and an opportunity to present contradictory evidence.
  • Educational Law §3214 was enacted in New York State to provide students their “due process” to protect students rights.

  • All school districts must adopt a code of conduct.
  • Code of conduct must be made public.
  • Generally, No Automatic suspensions allowed, with exception of certain cases where there is a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disruption to the academic process. (Parents must be notified within 24 hours with receipt of notice)

Student’s may be suspended for off-campus misconduct and for unintentional consequences.

Decision and Findings continued

Decision and Findings

  • Contract also violated due process rights under IDEA
  • Although there is a written document, there is no notice provided to the parent, that in executing the contract, they would be giving up their rights under Education Law 3214
  • Contract is not a valid waiver of the student’s rights and the decision to permanently suspend without due process cannot be sustained

Impact on Schools

  • Commissioner found that the contract violates Education Law 3214 and the student’s due process rights because it imposes the penalty of permanent suspension for the April 2002 conduct without the benefit of a superintendent’s hearing.
  • The April permanent suspension was new punishment for new misbehavior, which was imposed without due process

Key Issues Continued

Administrators must always follow due process and be certain that any, and all contracts include the rights of the family.

Key Issues

Relevant Facts continued

  • They also contend that the code of conduct cannot be enforced if it violates the due process rights of students
  • The district contends that the contract of conduct was a permissible attempt to allow the student to continue their education rather than be suspended and that the parents did not request a conference

Holdings

  • There is a dispute as to whether petitioners requested a conference with the superintendent based on the contract or asked for a superintendent’s hearing, but the record reflects the district declined to provide a superintendent’s hearing based on the language in the contract
  • Petitioners assert that the district violated the student’s due process rights under Education Law 3214, IDEA, and the Commissioner’s regulations by failing to hold a superintendent’s hearing based on the alleged misbehavior, and by failing to keep him in his educational setting pending the hearing and manifestation determination

  • If student failed to comply, the superintendent, at her discretion, by written notice, could decide the student was no longer permitted to attend Haverling.
  • If the student contested the determination, he could request a conference and the superintendent would advise the student, in writing, her result

Relevant Facts continued

  • Suspension expired on January 28, 2002
  • A manifestation hearing determined the behavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability
  • In a December 2001 letter advising the parents of her determination and the student’s suspension, the superintendent stated parents must sign a code of conduct

  • Parents and student executed a contract on January 24, 2002 which noted the duration of the suspension and provided for the student’s return to school on a probationary basis.
  • Contract stated the student’s attendance was at the complete discretion of the district, based upon the student’s compliance

Relevant Facts continued

Decision No. 14,818

Relevant Facts

  • April 1, 2002- student was suspended for five days for attending school under the influence of alcohol
  • Student was suspended from April 1, 2002 to April 8, 2002 and his return to school was pending a superintendent’s hearing
  • In a letter, dated April 2, 2002, the superintendent advised the family she had determined the student failed to comply with his responsibilities under the code of conduct and as a result, he was no longer permitted to attend Haverling

  • At the time of the appeal, the student was enrolled in the ninth grade and classified as learning disabled
  • As a result of an incident on November 29, 2001, the student was suspended for the remainder of the first semester after a superintendent’s hearing.
  • Suspension started on December 28, 2001

  • Appeal of a student with a disability, by his parents, from action of the Board of Education of the Bath Central School District and Marion Tunney, Superintendent, regarding student discipline
  • November 6, 2002

Impact on Schools

  • Administrators must document misconduct.
  • They must present it to the accused and their parents.
  • The accused may refute the claims and request a hearing to prove their innocence.
  • If the case against a student presents as an emergency situation, students can be sent home and a hearing will happen a later date.

Reasoning

  • Justin Byron White noted, “students’ right to liberty included reputation, honor, integrity and standing with teachers and other students.” By suspending Lopez without due process all of these can be damaged.
  • Furthermore a 10-day suspension is not a small matter with regards to these issues.
  • According to the majority of the court, students are entitled to oral or written notice of charges. If a student denies the charges an explanation of the evidence against them must be provided. The student also must be given an opportunity to provide their side of the events.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that Ohio law limited students’ rights to due process.

Due Process and Student Discipline

Issues

Principal Goss and School Officials

  • Goss and school officials’ argument in this case is that the gravity of the suspension, 10 days, is not severe enough to require due process.
  • They also argued that the operation of schools is a power reserved to the states.
  • Ohio has chosen to offer free public schools, but public education is not a right.
  • School officials in their view must be the ones to maintain discipline codes and enforce them, not judges.

Goss v Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

Issues

Students Argument

  • The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
  • Lopez’s argument is whether a student right to an education is a property of interest and can it be taken away without due process.
  • Under due process students should receive notice of the rules they are violating, a hearing, have a right to confront accusers, and have a chance to tell their side of the story.
  • None of this was given and students were suspended at the Principal Goss’ discretion.

Facts

  • Dwight Lopez along with 9 other students were suspended from school for 10 days for being disruptive in the lunchroom and destroying school property
  • Ohio law school principals were entitled to suspend a student for up to ten days or expel them without a hearing for misconduct.
  • Lopez and the other plaintiffs brought suit against Principal Goss, claiming that their suspension without a hearing violated their Due Process rights.

Due Process Rights Students Have in School contd.

A school can suspend a student without prior notice or a hearing if school officials think he or she poses a threat to other students or property of the school.

In this situation, the school is obligated to give notice of the charges and schedule a hearing as soon as possible.

Due Process Rights Students Have in School

The student must be informed of the accusation being brought against him or her, and the reason for the accusation.

If a student or students are facing a more severe punishment (for example, suspension for more than 10 days, or expulsion), the student or students are entitled to a formal hearing before an impartial body such as a school board.

The student has the option of having a lawyer present.

What is due process?

This is the basic belief that no one should be assumed to have dishonored any laws, regulations or ethical codes without first having a fair trial in front of people who can judge him or her in an unbiased manor.

Due Process

The Due Process has two basic purposes:

  • First, to produce a fair judgment through accurate results brought against the accused.
  • Second, to put citizens at ease knowing that the government has had the ability to hear their side of the story and that they were treated fairly.
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi