Hooverlaw.com

Blog


Thursday, October 18, 2007

Attendance Policy Makes a Wrong Turn By Deborah Yi, PHLO Intern, 2007-2008

-- Deborah Yi is a senior at Seneca Valley High School and the Editor in Chief of The Talon, SVHS School Newspaper. She is completing a year-long internship at PHLO.


Truant students will be denied driving privileges if a new bill passes in the Maryland General Assembly – permitting the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) to punish students unfairly and inappropriately.


The bill, which passed the House of Delegates and the Senate Judiciary Committee in March and will soon be heard by the entire State Senate, would prohibit students with 10 or more unexcused absences in one calendar year from obtaining a driver's license the following year, and would require school districts to report all unexcused absences to the MVA. Legislators removed a provision in the bill that would have also suspended students' existing licenses for truancy. What an administrative nightmare!


Although the bill's proponents are justified in attempting to boost attendance rates, they seem to overlook the simple reason the MVA is currently unaffiliated with the state education system: There is no logical connection between driving and getting an education. Poor students are not necessarily poor drivers. Students who skip class do not necessarily use their cars to do so: additionally students who repeatedly skip class will continue to do so whether or not they have access to a car.


Furthermore, while supporters of the bill point out that students who skip class are more likely to vandalize property, steal vehicles or rob homes, taking away these students' driver's licenses will not necessarily deter them from committing crimes, given their already established propensity for disregarding authority. The bill is an arbitrary punishment - one completely unfit for the crime.


To effectively combat truancy, lawmakers should limit punishments for students who skip class to those carried out by the school system. At Seneca Valley High School, administrators have effectively enforced a detention policy that dramatically reduced tardiness. Last year, Seneca Valley began making automated phone calls to parents when their children are marked absent or tardy in any class.


Other schools would do well to adopt similar initiatives meant to deter students from skipping. Enforcing attendance policies from within the school system will be more efficient than relying on a separate governmental organization (the MVA) to punish truant students.


If the bill passes, students with poor attendance may even drop out of high school - allowed after age 16 in Maryland - so that the MVA can no longer deny them a license based on their attendance records.


While dropping out just to avoid losing driving privileges may seem like a drastic move, students with 10 or more unexcused absences may have already lost credit in several classes. The proposed law could mean such students would lose the initiative to retake failed classes, especially when they would need to find a ride to evening school because they don't have a license. Students affected by the proposed law would be subjected to a completely nonsensical policy. They would lose driving privileges for breaking school rules that have nothing to do with driving, under a law enforced by a non-educational body that can’t get a driver’s license renewed in two hours.

posted by Pat Hoover at 12:19 PM 0 comments

Share Story del.icio.us | facebook | Digg! digg | permalink | email story



Your Name(ex.John Smith):
Your Email:
Friend's Email:




Thursday, October 04, 2007

LCs, Suspensions, and Expulsions: The Appeal Process Uncovered
By Deborah Yi, PHLO Intern, 2007-2008:

In June of 2007, senior Sarah Douglas was unable to graduate from Northwood High School with most her fellow classmates. A straight-A student, varsity cheerleader, and National Honor society member, Sarah was all set to go to New York University on a scholarship – if it weren’t for her loss of credit in due to absences her AP Literature class.

“It was really annoying trying to go through the appeal process with the teacher and administrators. And in the end, it was too late. I had to go to summer school and I almost wasn’t able to go to NYU,” said Douglas.

Although it seems so trivial, Douglas is only one of hundreds of students each year that lose credit, not because of poor performance in class, but of unexcused absences and tardies. Interestingly, 63 percent of students who lose credit for being absent are high school seniors.

“It’s our last year of high school and you just kind of get sick of it all because you’ve been through same thing for four years. Sometimes you just don’t want to be here so you decide not to,” said Seneca Valley High School senior Brigid Huamani.

According to The Montgomery County Board of Education, it takes five unexcused absences for a student to lose credit (also referred to as an LC) the class, regardless of the student’s grade in the course. Three unexcused tardies equal one unexcused absence. However, the system seems to vary in each high school. Winston Churchill High School’s policy states that four unexcused absences would cause a student to lose credit while Seneca Valley’s policy says that it takes three unexcused absences to LC a class.

“Honestly, I don’t like the LC policy in Montgomery County,” said Mrs. Suzanne Maxey, principal of Seneca Valley. “If a student is losing credit in a class they are getting an A in, I would say the class is too easy.”

The LC appeal process can be long or short, depending on the student, their grade, and their relationship with their teacher. Upon receiving an LC, the student must first appeal to the teacher of the class writing an essay explaining how the situation will change and what the student promises to do from that point on. If the teacher does not agree to appeal the LC, the student may next appeal it to the class’ department chair, then finally the principal.

The appeal process for suspensions and expulsions work similarly. The principal may only institute a suspension for a maximum of 10 days and cannot expel a student. They are able only to recommend the student to the area supervisor, in which the school is located, for expulsion.

To appeal an expulsion, the student must go to the principal, then the Montgomery County Board of Education where the student may be given a hearing. However, appeals for expulsions are very rarely given, according to Wayne Whigham, president of the Board’s Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel, or the MCAASP. “If your school recommends you for an expulsion, it’s pretty much a guarantee that you’ll be expelled,” said Whigham. “Each school is given a set of Non-Negotiable rules and that runs the school’s disciplinary system. Break them and that’s where you will be seeing a whole lot of me.”

Students with a 504 plan or an IEP go through the appeal process a bit differently. They go through a Manifestation Hearing, in where a team of educators, parents and sometimes attorneys or psychologists meet to determine whether the offense of the student was a result of a disability or not. “Put in simple terms, if you’re a blind person, and that’s your disability, and there’s a rule about walking into walls and you walk into a wall, well the fact that you are blind caused you to walk into a wall. It was a manifestation of your disability and your appeal process would go a bit differently,” explained Maxey.

In the fall of this year, it was a new beginning for Douglas as she entered New York University School of Business. “I definitely learned from the whole experience that skipping school will get to you one day, even if it doesn’t seem like a big deal at the time,” said Douglas. “I won’t ever skip at NYU because I’m actually paying for my classes now.”

-- Deborah Yi is a senior at Seneca Valley High School and the Editor in Chief of The Talon, SVHS School Newspaper.

She is completing a year-long internship at PHLO.

posted by Pat Hoover at 1:11 PM 1 comments

Share Story del.icio.us | facebook | Digg! digg | permalink | email story



Your Name(ex.John Smith):
Your Email:
Friend's Email:




Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Supreme Court Split Decision in Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled by split decision 4 to 4 (one Justice recused himself from the case) on a case already mentioned in our blog that was quite recently argued: Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. involved the normally disputed question of whether a family can obtain reimbursement for private school tuition from the local school district where the student had never even been enrolled in public school special ed services. Since the 8 Justices split thier decision, the decision in favor of the parents in awarding reimbursement will stand undisturbed as the law, at least in the 2nd Circuit. Who else thinks the case would likely have gone the other way had Chief Justice Roberts not recused himself?

posted by Pat Hoover at 3:15 PM 0 comments

Share Story del.icio.us | facebook | Digg! digg | permalink | email story



Your Name(ex.John Smith):
Your Email:
Friend's Email:




Supreme Court Hears Case of Private School Tuition Reimbursement October 1, 2007: The United States Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. This case involved the question of private school tuition reimbursement in circumstances where the public school had failed to provide a special needs student with a free and appropriate education (FAPE) and whether the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) requires that before reimbursement is even available, a student must first have been receiving special education in the public school - before being placed in the private school. The Second Circuit ruled in favor of the parents on the issue and the Board appealed to the Supreme Court on the issue. This case is but the latest in a string of special education cases the Supreme Court has recently heard.

The U.S. Department of Justice sided with the parents on the issue and argued with the parent's attorney that despite the language of the statute, it makes no sense to suggest the law was meant to exclude any possibility of reimbursement for any student who had not previously received special ed services while in a public school setting.

Before reaching the Supremes, New York State found that the local school system had failed to offer the student a FAPE and found further that the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the private school tuition they had been forced to spend. As in other recent cases involving issues of the burden of proof, expert witness fees, and even the question of whether a parent can serve as the attorney in a case - special education cases all - we will be watching for this decision very carefully, knowing that whichever way the court decides the question, the holding will have far reaching consequences to the practice of education law throughout the country.

posted by Pat Hoover at 3:15 PM 0 comments

Share Story del.icio.us | facebook | Digg! digg | permalink | email story



Your Name(ex.John Smith):
Your Email:
Friend's Email:




|Hoover Law| Lexis Nexis Info | Firm Profile |Other Practice Areas | Blog | Location | Questions | Contact Us |