4

II ;i2:: IIH1

2.5

II HI 2.2!NI 3 2

1112.0. .

1.25 1.4

I 1.8

1.6

micRocoPy P ULU I ION I (.11AP

ED. 137 897

AUTHOR- -;TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPORS AGENCY

-PUB DATE ,

CONTRACTgOTEAVAILABLE FROM

gpfts PRICE ,

DESCRIPTORS

Dotpon RESUME

95 EA 009 043-

Schofield, Dee; Dunn, PierreStudent Rights and Discipline. AC:a School ManagementDigest, Series 1,-Bumber E. ERIC/CEM ResearchAnalysis Series, Number 32.AssociatiOn of California S.:.hool Administrators.;Oregon Univ., Eugene.. ERIC Clearinghouse onEducational Management. . _

_National Inct. of Education (D2EW),' Washington,D.C.77OEC-0-8-080353-351433p.Association of California School Adiinistrators, P.O.Box 39186, Rincon Annex, San Francisco, California9413-9 ($1.75, members; $2.75, non-members)

MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.Liberties:.*Court Litigation; *Discipline;

Discipline Policy; Due Process; Educational .

AdAinistration;. Educational Philosophy; ElementarySecondary'Education; *Student Rights;,Student School

-Is

Relationship; Supreme Court Litigation_IDENTIFIERS ,In Dico Parentcs

ABSTRACTThe conflict between authoritarianism and democracy

. is a/most nowhere more obvious than in ihe controversial area of .

student rights. In loco parentis, long an integral part ofeducational practice, is no longer an accepted role for educatorg toaSsgme toward students. Directly coulter to in loco parentis is theconcept af due process of law for students. This review of the .

literature'examines the key court decisions establishing such civilliberties for siudetts a.s First Amendment rights, freedom fromunreasonable search and seizure, the right of students to examinetheir records, equal treatment fox handicapped students, and,freedomfrom discrimination on the basis of race or sex. In regard to studientrights, the school adMinisirator's position is not an en4iable one:

\The ambiguity surrounding the student rights cAtroversy mtkes hardand fast answers difficult to come.by. But the-schools can become the-set.ting for.achieving balance between the opposing forces evident in '

both'the, student rights controversy and in the society as'a whole.(Anthor)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

* materials not available from other sources: EPIC makes every effort ** to obtain the kest copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal' ** reproducibility,are often encountered and this affects the quality ** of the microfiche wnd hardcopy reproductions .ERIC makes available * .

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the qualitir of the original document. Reproductions *.* supplied by ED1fS are the best that can be made from the original. ****************************************************4.4******************

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

DOCumE,NT BEE'. '.4EPRO.CEC E PECE::ED QOME PEQSON Da 0?,C,NNG IT PO.NTS OR OP,NIONS

;TED DO NOT NECESS:-PILY REFIRE-OPF iCIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

UC,TION POSiT1ON OP POLICY

Serles 1, No. 5

GHTSDISCIPLIDee Schofield and Pierre Dunn

Prepared byERIC Clearinghouse onEdiacational Management

3

Published byAssociation of California

School Administrators

z. ACSA School Managementbigest, Number Five

ER1C/CEM-Accession Number: EA 009 043 ,

ER1CiCEM Research Analysis Series, Number Thirty-two

Printed in the United States of Anierica. 1977

Assoclation of California School Atrinin:strators

1575 Old Bayshor'e Drive

Burlingame. California 94010

Additional copies are available from ACS.A for S1.75.

The material in this *publicktion was prepared pursuant to a contract withthe National Institute of Education. U,S. Department of Hellt14 Education,and Welfare. ConiractOrs undertaking such projects under government'sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgment in professionaland technical matter's.' Prior to publication, the manuscript was submitted tothe Association 'of CAlifornia School Administrators for critica) review anddetermination of professional competence. This publication has met suchstandards. Points of view or opinions, however. do not necessarily representthe official view or opinions oreither the Association of California SchoolAdministrators or the National Institute of Education.

4

COT4TENTS

Forel"niord

introduction: The PhiloSophical Roots 1,Puritan Authoritarianism 1

jeffersonian Democracy 2The Trend toward Student Rights 3

The Basis for AuthoHty: In LocoParentis 5

The Verdict of the Courts: Students Have Rights 7'Sitbstantive Right's 7

Procedural Rights 9The Opened Door 110

Interpreting Right-S and Freedoms 12.First Amendment Rights 12Search and eizureStudent Records . _ 15Equal Treatment for the ,Flandicapped 15Equality_of the Sexes 16

Practical Aspects of RightS and-Discipline 17The Written Code ,

a 17& Suspension, Expulsion, and Corporal Punishment 18

onclusion 21

Bibliography 22

9

The Educational Resoprces Information Center (ERIC). is a nationalinformation system operated by the National Institute of Education. ERICserves the educational community by disseminating educational researchresults and other resource information that can be used in developing moreeffective educational programs.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, one of severalclearinghouses in the system, was establithed at the University of Oregon in1966. The Clearinghouse and its companion units process.research reportsarid- journal articles for announcement in ERIC's index and abstractbulletins.

esearch -reports are announced in Resources in Education (12.IE),available in many libraries-and by subscription for $42.70 a year from theUnited States Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C. 20402. Mostof the documents listed in RIE can be purchased througlt the ERIC, Docu-ment Reproduction Service, operated by Computer Microfilm International

t CorPoration.Jourrial articles are announced in Current Index to Journals in Educa.

lion. 'CIJE is also availabk in many libraries and can be ordered for $61 ayear from Macmillan Information, 21612 Brown Street, Riverside. New Jersey08075. Semiaroual cumulations can be ordered sepalrately.

Besides processing dociunents and journal articles, the Clearinghouse hasanother major function information analysis and synthesis. The Clearing- .house prepares bibliographies, literature reviews, state-of-the-knowledge

ipapers. and other interpretive research studies .on topics ii, its onalarea.

6

FOREWORD

Both the Association, of California School Administra'torsand-the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management arepleased to cooperate in producing the Educational LeadersDigest, a series of reports designed to offer educational leadersessential information on a wide range of critical concerns ineducation-

At a time when decisions in education must be made on the6asis of increasingly complex information,- the Digest providesschool administrators with concise, readable analyses of themint important trends in schools today, as well as points up thepractical implications of major research findings.

By special cooperativc arrangement, the series draws onthe extensive research facilifies and expertise of the ERICClearinghouse on Educational Management. The titles in theseries were planned and developed cooperatively by bothorganizations. Utilizing the resources of the ERIC_ network,the Clearnghouse is responsible for researching the topics andpreparing the copy for publication by ACSA.

he authors of this report, Dee Schofield and Pierre Dunn,were commissioned by the Clearinghcuse as research analystsand writers. ,

William Cunningham Vhilip K. PieleExecutive Director DirectorACSA ERIC/CEM

7

INTRODUCTION: THE PHILO.SOPHICAL ROOTS

School adrninistrators'=of today find, themselves caughtbetween two warring factions: the: "hardno. ses" who agree-,iholeheartedly with ex-VicelPresident Agnew that '"discipline'and order ought to be a first priorty even ahead of curricu-._

lurnin the schools of this country," and the "bleeding heart"liberals who believe that the best education can. never beachieved in a stringent "law 'n order" environment.

Almost nowhere does this conflict become more heatedthan in the controversial area of rights for students. The con-flict over student rights, is a mauifestation of a much broader(and deeper) conflict within American society as a whole. Thatthe schools have become embroiled in this ,controversy is aninevitable result of the nature of public education in thisccr.mtry.

Hand in hand with the uniquely. American idea of publiceducation for everyone (rich or poor) go two diametricallyopposed concepts: Both have their roots deep in American,/history and philosophy, and their iMpact is still' felt in currentattempts to define the rights of students. One, holdszthatauthority enianates from above, and those .governeeby suchauthority have little or no say about how.,-that power isexercised. The other holds that authorityVoriginates solelywithin the governed themselves and that,tey alone are able to/

idetermine what govetnmental actionzis n their best interests.This conceptual conflict has plagued American education (justas it has American political/ philosophy) since hefore theRevolution.

)'Puritan Authoritarianism

The idea of public education, along with the concept ofauthoritarian control, originated in the Massachusetts BayColony settled by Puritans in the seventeenth century. ThePuritan gqvernmental structure reflected.these colonists con-

of npason was to iframe-2 wernment in which no one person,or group of peJons. had supreme authority. Thus, "Those whogoverve defmed functions beyond which they may not go,"as--a--d states. These functions are defined by law; hence.

as these two theorists conceived it, is governmentby law, not by men. And the Constitution, in conjunction withthe courts, exists to resolve conflicts arising over the exercise ofpower.

Operating under these democratic premises. Jefferson out-lined a...function Of education quite different from theespoused by the Purita nstead of a means of control,education was, to efferson. the means of preparing thepopulate for assumption of governmem.al responsibility. In his"Notes Virginia" (cited in Golditein), he pro-poses a systernof schooling intended "to diffuse knowledge more generallythrough the mass of the people." He outlines a system ofeducation desiped to provide the essentials ("reading, writing,and arithmetic") for everyone. From these tuition-less schoolsthe cream of the crop is to be selected for further schooling,thus allowing those with more natural ability access to higher

'education. Noticeably absent in Jefferson's plan is anyreference to the discipline and rigid control so characteristic ofthe Pthitan educational system.

- The Trend toward Student Rights

Much has changed since these two opposing concepts ofeducation were first developed. According to Nahern); andRosario, the Puritan view of children as ignorant, evil, andeven depraved creatures requiring salvation as much as theirelders slowly gave way to the Enlightenment notion of the childas pure and innocent until corrupted by man. The impact ofscience and technology in the late nineteenth century Heed thechild of even this theological significance. The focus of educa-tion shifted from controlling the child's evil nature or protect-ing, his innocence t9. i new concern for allowing the child.todevelop freely, Though with adUlt guidance.

Despite this shift away from authoritarianism, however,educational traditions remained more suited'.to the earlier

c. 10 3

attitudes. Ladd .F,notes that "school !law specialisis stillcommonly refer to:the regulating of stud"ent conduct as 'pupilcontrol'." It is not Farprising that the continual widening of thegap between these .-educational traditions and the developingbelief that children ;need freedom in order to develop as strongand effective citizens has rreated tensions that have eruptedinto the conflicts we are now witnessing.

Nor should it come as any surprise that in response to thisunresolved conflict the courts have stepped into the gap. Thesecourts were created tb act as the guardians of the Constitution,with its Bill of Rightsthe very documents Madison andJefferson helped to create. Historically the courts have beenreluctant to interfere,in_the day-to-day affairs of governmentalinstitution& of which the school-system is one of the largest andmost independent. TO the extent the courts in recent yearg haveintervened in matterslrelating to student rights and discipline,it is in large part because they have observed no other institu-tidhs for example,. legislative bodies (especially on the state

aggresSive action to safeguard constitutionallyprotected liberties. :

Because of the greater role played by the courts in thedelineation of student `rights, this paper focuses in large part onwhat Hazard terms "court-made" law. The school adminis-trator today 4s in a 'lather awkward situation, as numerouswl-iters on this topic Wave pointed out. He or she must incor-porate the mandates Of the courts into the governmental anddisciplinary structure Of the sChool, walking a fine line betweeninc,ieasingly atsertive Conservative and libetal factions in thecommunity: And above all else, the.administrator must alwa'ysconsider how best tO aehieve the goals of education for students

how to prepare them for citizenship.

4

1 1

THE BASIS FOR AUTHORITY:IN LOCO PARENTIS

Nowhere in the area of control of student behayior is theConflict between authoritarianism and democracy more

-evident than in the controversy over the concept of in locoparentis: Originating in the days of private tutors hired directlyby the parent, the concept views the teacher as acting literally"in the place of the parent," having full responsibility for thechifd in the parent's absence. Strengthened by the PuritanIce lief that children were inherently evil and had to be forcedinto the paths of righteousness with a stern hand, the conceptof in loco parentis passed iniact into the-public school system aspart of common law.

Since the parental role incorporates both conStructive andpunitive aspects, it follows under the in loco- parentis conceptthat school auttiorities are also entrusted with lioth responsi-bilities When the administrator acts as "a defender andsupporter ' of the student," playing "the role of the chihiadvocate, there to help the student," as Nolte describes theprotectiVe funCtion in his 1973 paper, few if any students orparents are likely to object.

But the punishment function is also a part of in locoparent,' s, as Reutter points out: "As applied. to discipline theinference is that school personnel may establisti rules for theeducational welfare of the child and the operation of the schooland may inflict punishments for disobedience." It is specificallyagainst this broad authority that objections are raised bystudent rights advocates.

Nolte's analysis of the dual nature of in loco parentis raiseswhat may be thought of as a question of conflict of interest.How is the school administrator to act as an advocate for thestudent while simultaneously investigating, judging, andpunishing that same student in an official capacity as "ineffect, an agent of the state"?-

12 5

The fact that public school systeths ha!ye been created bystate law, and school administratdrs are' therefore2agents ofgovernment at some level, is one of.the main reasons manyschool law, special".,ts find the in loco.parentis concept obsolete,

according to Bolmeier. Indeed, it is partly because theadministrator is "an agent of: the state" rather than a truefepresentative of the parents that the courts now exercise such

effective jurisdiction over school affairs.BolmeilT notes that in loco parengs became established

under a tutorial system that provided a one-to-one relationship

between student and educator. With the advent of largeschools and larger student/teacher ratios, this contact becameless intimate and more formalized. A true parent-to-childrelationship could no longer logically be claimed.

One of the effects of this loss of intimacy and close concern

was recognized by a Vermont court as early as 1859. Kleemanstates that this court noted the possibility for abuse of thepunitive side of the in loco parentis role. The school official has

none of the "instinct of parental affection" that normally acts

as a curb on intrafarnily discipline, according to this court.Although some court rulings have reinforced the in loco

doctrine, even as recently as 1969 (State v. Stein, 456 P.2d 1),

others have seriously questioned its validity, especially where it

interferes with due process,, as Nolte points out. That nodefinitive ruling (specifically from the Supreme Court) hasbeen, or even can be, rendered on this doctrine indicates that

the tension between authoritarian control and democraticlatitude has yet to be resolved. But if one thing is cleat in allthe ambiguity suftounding the in loco issue, it is that educators

can no longer fall back on their quasi-parental role idsitua-tions involving student discipline.

13

%

Directly counter tO the concept of in loco parentis is theconcept of due process of law for students. Whil-the formerassumes That the student must submit unquestioningly andwithout appeal to the discipline of his or her superiors, thelatter akumes that those superiors may not deprive a student of"life, liberty, or Prol4rty" without according him the chance tOanswer the charges against him and to plead his case. beforeany disctplinary actioi can be taken. .

Due process right:can be divided into two distinct types.- Substantive due process guarantees the equal application ofthe laws and protecticin froin the unreasonable deprivation oflife, liberty, and propert3\Prócedura1 due process provides forthe following of 'certain required steps before such deprivationcan be considered acceptable. The history of court recognitionof student rights is: one of the establishment of substantiverights first and then a shift in concern to the delineation of

, procedural rights.

Substontive Rights

The big hreakthrough forIttident rights came in 195*when'the Suprerrie Court-decided Brown v. 'Board of Educa-tiOn. In addition M cilling a halt to racial segregation, Brownalso firmly established federal court jurisdiction 'a studentrights cdses and provided the basis for 'the application of theFourteenth Amendinent guaranteeof "equal protection of thelaws" to students in school as wellTa-si-o-the opulation ingeneral.

The Brown decision furnished tremendous inspirationlirthe civil rights movement, creating an atmosphere ideal forstudent rights -activism. Still, the reluctance of the SupremeCourt to interfere in school affairs, partly out of respect for thetradition of in loco parentis, postponed until 1969 any further,

14

'.01.1401.1.1111.N11 4.1116111114111 V ,:piJFIJ11.11/11D '111 1.11G SU Gla UI 111M141111.1Vc

'las. That decisiOn came in Tinker v. 'Des. Moines Independ-0:60 District. ',

Tinker. the Supreme Court directly addressed the area ofstudent discipi:ne per se for. the first' time, as Reutier notes.The "black arniband7,--case has received more attention byeducators -and student .rights advocates' than has almost anyother .Court decision in ,recent 'history. Although Mr. JUsticeFortas, in writing the majority opinion of the Court, empha-sized .:hat "for almost 50 years" the Supreme Court has upheldthe First Amendment rights of students,. the' Tinker caae

,presents the issues of the constitutional rights. of,students,interms much clearer than previous rulings. In upholding the.students' .claim that their freedom of expression ..had been

:abridged bY a school rule barring the wearing of arrnbands inprOtest of the Vietnam war, .the Court states the. crux .of itsargninent in memorable terms:

First Arnendiment.rights, ipplied in light of tilt special charac:terisiics of.the school :environment, are available to teachersand students. It can hardly be 4rgupd that either students orteachers shed r!heir c,nstitutional rights to freedom of speechor exPression at the schoolhouse gate. (393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct.

:.733, 736)

AltLough legitimately yiewed as a milestone case by studentrights advocates, ihe Tinker decision was far from definitive inall areas. The Court explicitly spelled out those areas (suCh as"type of clothing.' and "hair style or deportrnt") to which_theruling did not refer. The Court 'also asserted "the need foraffirming the, comprehensive authority of the. States and ofschool authorities, consistent with fundamental constitutionalsafeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schOols."

. Despite these., conditions, Tiiker made arnplY clear thenecessity of balancing school authority with studenv' consti-.tthional rights. Where Brotiin establiShed that all sat-dents hadto be treated equally, Tinker added that students-could claimthe sAme substantive rights as adults; though the degree offreedoni- they had in exercising those rights was subject torestrictions', depending on the circumstanees.

0.

rrootnaurni .ruuntu

One of the rights thav Tinker did not explicitly. grantStudents was the right to procedural due proCess. This right'was guaranteed for minors by In re Gault in 1967,- at least asfar as the juvenile court system was concerned, but slioolsmaintained into'the 1970s their in loco parentis prerogative tohandle educational disciplinary proceedings as they saw fit. /Still, it was not lOng before lower .coutrts were applying the ,/standards outlined in Gault to -other cases in which juvenileswere deprived ofSome degree of liberty or property;

Then., in 1975, the Supreme Court made two decisions thatnot only guaranteed procedural rights to- students'but alsomade school officials liable for damages if thOse or cconstitutional rights were maliciously or unreasonabl,

sThe first of these cases was Goss v. Lopez, in whic lideisuspended without hearings for less than ten/ days ,

removal of any references to their suspensiOns from. thenofficial records. An Ohio statute permitting...Such SuspensionsWithout notice or hearings was siruck down as unconstitutional.

In the Goss decision the Court states minimum standards ofdue procesi that are expressly 'designed :.to create the leastpos\sible interference with the schools' administrative practices:Basically, the student in, question must be notified .of thecharges against him eitheroor;lly or in writing and muit begiven an early opportunity to present his side of the story. Aslong as the facts are notin dispute and the proposed suspensionis under ten'clays, no more. Procedure is required. If the factsare in doubt or if the proposed discipline is i-tiOre severe,greater fiirrnalitris -required _to avoid the chance for 2 mis

-'earriage of justice.e Goss decision turned in part on the Court's finding that,

the studentS in the case had a right to an echication.This rightisnnot granted in the Constitution, but is a "property interest"crated by the state laws establishing free public education and-requiring attendance. The,stnclents were also found tolhave_a'liberty interest" in a good reputation; having a suspension on'his record could hurt a student's Chances for jobs or edncationin the future and thus limit his liberty. Both of these interests

13- °

eted':14- the Toutteenth Atha-id-Mehl; ivIiiCh7reqiiiiteS7,7that due:pixicgss be followed whenever they are threatened 'by

, .. .. state action. v.., , . .

The second 105 decision was in. Wood O. Strickland. SomestUdents accused of spiking punch at a school function were.suspended. The Supreme Court unanimOusly agreed that .alower court s'hould investigate whether, procedural due processhad been followed, unanimously held that subst.ntive dueprocess -had not been denied, and, by a narrow 5-4 Marginstated as its most significant finding that school officials who.,should reasonably be aware of students' constitutional rights,and yet fail io observe them are liable for monetary damages. .

. .

The: Opened Door

The Court has clearly established its h,e do....

hive rights Id that school officials m as

governmental representatives expected Lk, Inca their: legalresponsibilities profasionally., But can the Court's decisions inTinker, Goss, and. Wood be cOnsidered definitive and final?Hardly. Tinker limited its own applications strictly and listedseveral areas to be left for future 'decisions. While both GOSS.

ind Wood were strong/7 stated, neither was specific enough toserve as more than a theoretical guideline to the adminiStratorituck with:a complex practical situation.

In fact, theSe Court cfecisioRs may prove in the long run tobe More important for having opened the' door to the futurethan for having settled anything in themselves. Wecksteinnotes 4hats, Justice, Powell's dissent to the ,poss decision,although rather alarinist in tone, does a better joh' than themajoritY opinion of visualizing the possibilities for future: litigation thai Court recognition Of students ri .,hts might summonforth. .

For instanceif a student can suc- ,ssfully claim that asuspension of twn or three days'.imping-lv on hii property andliberty interests enough to require due rocess, how can otheradministrative decisions affecting education be justifiedwithout similar, due process requirements? ,,Surey' academicevaluatiOn, excluSion from extracurr'-cular açtivitis, invo1un-

17

ers,- p acement ,specia sc oo s or classei, anducational tracking lipit the student as much as a brief sus-

penlioni Arid how can due process be denied in cases wherestudent records re ,challenged, corporal punishment isadministerdd, behavidr mOdifying drugs are given, studentpublications are subject to prior review,. and students are

7 excluded from activities for medical reasons?Goss states that disciplinary action more severe than a ten-

day suspension requires a more formal due process procedure.How are the effects of the administrative actions listed above tobe weighed in the balance, and what degree of formality will

each require? Wood requires school officials to understand therights of their suiderits. What rights are affected by the actionslisted above, and how can theyhe weighed against educationalinterests?

The Courts have supplied no simple answers to these mtions, but administrators do have sorne options for actik .1. Oneof these is for officials to.' go out of their -way to make surestudents have every opportunity to be heard before decisionsaffecting them as individuals are:made. A second option is toexamine' recent rulings on school cases regarding pupils and see .how the courts have interpreted student rights. The next

, chapterprovides a brief introduction tp this process, Oinliningthe major areas in which rights are claimed

18

The tendency of the courts to decide\cases on the basis ofprocedural issues when at all possible fias led to the fairly I;

secure, if sOmewhat ambiguous, due process decisionsdescribed in the previoui chapter. On the other hand, thissame tendency has left Unanswered the need for definitiverulings Om the extensiveness of other rights claimed bystudents. r .

- The First Amendment guarantees freedom Of speech andexpression, freedom of the press, fieeaom of religion, andfreedom. of assembly. The °Fourth 'Amendment providesprotection from unreasonable searches and seizures Studentrecords are made accessible by The Family Educational Rights,--,.and- Privacy Act. Title IX of the Education Amendments

'1972 forbids sex discrimination against students and emPloyeesin all federally assisted programS in all instituiions that receivefederal money. The .question is not what these rights,are, buthow narrowly the couris will interpret them and how .muchdiscretion schools will be allowed to retain..

First Amendment Rights

The post-Tinker expressimi cases ("symbol cases," as\- .

I

Reutter calls them) hive been decided geneiagy on the criteria \stated in Tinker: Wliete the exPression ofopinion through'the ,

Wearing of insignia or emblems would "materially and stib-

stantially interfeire' with the recmirements of appropriatediscipline in the operation of the school," school ,officialsjustified in banning their wear.. The probleM, of course, is 7

determining.(and substantiating), What material and substan- .tial interference consists of.

The schoOl administtor must use his own judgment in1"foirecating'' dis'order;' Reutter notei: And he Must not

. ,

define disorder as "the discOmfort and Unpleasantness that. always accompany an unpopular vieWpoint," as the Court

19 \12

snrcrrr. 1,1111V MALV .16401,0

&inifort". and "disorder, . and the court decisions since Tinkerindicate the difficulty in defining this line. Reutter:points outthat some "symbol. cases" have supported the stuCients' posi-lion, while others uphold the sehoors.

A similar split exists in the courts' attitudes towArd dresand appearance (including hairstyle). While some have over-turned school regulations governing student appearance,others há ve. upheld the school's efforts tis prescribe standardsfor student appearance. In some federalcourt districts, Courtshave iluled that certain appearance regulations (such as those °

governing lengih of hair for male students) do indeed infringeon freedom of expresSion. In otiiers, the quality of exPressionpossible in styles of hair or dress has been considered insuf-ficient to warrant constitutional protection..

Since 1968, a number of court cases dealing with studenth'rights to free. expression through publications have arisen.That school 'authorities can control the "time, place, andManner" of student publications has been well-established(Cerayned v. City of Rockford, 1972). But such control. mustnot be "deceptively used as a guise for restricting produciion .

and, distribution of literature Ileemed undesirable by schoolauthorities," according to Aeutter.

The court of Appeals', Seventh Circuit, has ruled, in adecision since mooted by the Supreme CoKt; that student-::published criticism of the school adniinistration found offen-Sive by school officials is not grounds 'for expulsion of thestudents responsible for the. criticism. This court used thetinker crkeriOn of "disruption" in reaching its decision, ruling..that the material in question had not disrupted the educationalprocess in the school. As with criticism of the school ti'dminis.:tration, the colirts have generally held that other contmversialissues dealt with in student. publkations (including studentrights) ire permissible as long as the student's follow theschool's reqUirements for distribution.

"Obscenity and vulgarity" in student pUblications is not soclear-cut an issue, as Reduer points out. fitAlthough "schoolauthorities can ban obscene materials froin school preinisei,"

:*4

15

e supprestion':of material due to the "earthiness" of thelanguage or t1;e fierative use of expressiohs coarsely describ-ing sexual acts has been frowned on by the courts.

The queStion of "prior restraint", of student publications isalso undckided, with some districts holding that such restraintis permissible under certain restrictions, and others viewing itas an infringement on the exercise of First Amendment rights.This ambiguity is reflected in school policies governingadministration review of student publications, according to'Kleeman. He states that while "the majority of school adminis-trators disclaim requiring 'prior review' of student, publica-tions," they acknoWledge "that faculty adviSers frequently dopreview student publishing efforts."

..151 4:7.endnient Tight o frettit if religion (orfrom, as the caltz may be) is fair4 well establasned for students,as Kleeman notes. The 1963 Supreme Court decision banningprescribed prayer in the public schools has withstood attemptsby Congress and some state legislatures to_reinstdte schoolprayer.

The use, of religious grounds as a reason for, exclusion ofchildren from some classes or rivedical requirements at the

request of parents has had less success. In general,'the courtshave stated that unless the child is old enough to fully under-stand the :near:71g and significance of his own religious con-victions, the interest of the state in having an informed andhealthy citizenry. Outweighs the Parents' interests in fre-e

exercis!i of their beliefs.Freedom of asseMlAy can easily be governed by .the criteria

set down in Tinker, according to Klemnaii. Student meetingsshould not disrupt the regular school schedtile and shouldconform to restrictions on the use of school facilities and theschool name.

Search and Seizure

While students can- claim freedom frorri "unreasonablesearches and seizures," what courts cenciTier unreasonable for

adults they may find' perfectly acceptable for students inschooL Kleernan notes that the area covered by the Fourth

14

7777777

-Arilei lathe t is "at least one where vestiges of the'dostrine Of inloco parentts still survive." The courts; conceding t6 educatorsfar broader discretion in conducting warrantless searches thanthey concede tO the police, may accept as adequate the consentof educators to,a police search of a locker despite a student'sobjections. Student lockers and desks are often considered asschool property provided for student use and subject to inspecOon by school Officials much, more readily than ire thestudents' persons; purses, automobiles, or other private effects.

WC'R '41Jie sficials should exercise caution in their:,earches of sL,.,ents lockers and desks, Kteeman warns. Headvises that the principal, not the teacher, should conduct the

e

search, and that :he student should be notified just prior to thesearch so that h may be present while it is conducted. Thepresence of a thir d party as witness is also advisable, accordingto Kleeman.

Student Records

The rights Lif students to examine and challenge theirofficial records tnti to limit the access of others to them havenot been establit..4hed by the courts but by an act ,of Congress.Recent amendments to this Family. Educational Rights andPrivacy Act, kr:own more familiarly as ihe Buckley 'Amend-ment, vprotect the confidentiality of those . placing personalrecomMendations, mediCal statements, and'similar documentsin the 'record_ The private records of an educator are notrequired to be opened, as long as they are for the educator'sown use and nor gaihered as part Of a systematisgollection of .'

data. This recently won right of students and their,parents hasmade record,keeping more difficult, but it also promotesgreater 6bjectivity and:helps protect both the student and theichool 'from the consequences of What could turn out tO beserious mistakes.

Ecluali Treatment for the Handicapped

kluch attention ii:as been given recently to the fight ofhandicapped and-exceptional children to an echication:..Twocourt deci§ions have extended the reasoning used in Brown v.

oard of, Eittication, to apply it to eXceptional and hancli-eapPed 'students. In Pennsylvania Association for R:qardidChildren V. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania "vMills v. Board of Educatiosi of the District of Cow"the courts confirmed that all children, regardless (,_

- .can, are entitled to a regular public school education or toadequate alternate educational services suited to their needs,"according to Olfson.

Not only is it frequently difficult for the public sehoolsystem to accommodate handicapped and exceptional children--because of the added financial burden, but sPecial privateschools for these children are also obviously affected by "main-.streaming." Regardless of the difficulties, the courts,according to' Turnbull, have increasingly ruled that .PublicinstrUction is preferable to private instruction, and that "chil-

' dren with' special problems benefit from contact 'with 'normal'children." The ,"right" of all children to public educatioinseems to be increasingly well established.

EqUality of the Sexes

iollowing a rapid increase in the number of, court cases on-the subject,' discrimination on the basis of sex has'been7forbid-den by Title IX. In federally 'funded institutions(s' tudents ofeither sqemust be permitted to enroll in all claS-ses. Counseling

'and testig rnaterialsand behavior and dress codemnust be thesame for both sexes. Athletic opportunities must be identical,thottgh the regulations do not require equal expenditurei.

The rules also state thak_piegnancy is not a valid reason forexcluding students from any School, class, or activity unless thestudent of her doctor-requests the exclusion.

23

RACTICAL ASPECTS OF RIGHTSAND DISCIPLINE eiD

The Courts and' the legislatures have established and a\econtinuing to establish a much more impressive set of rights ft7students ancf of restrictions and regulations for educators thanhas eyef before been the case. At times it must seem incredible\that educators are seriously expected to fulfill all the neW \\requirements, continue to maintain discipline in spite of these \requirements, and still find time to do the job of educating the

\students. The decision in Wood' even makes it necessary for the \

educator cOhtemplaiing disciplinary measures to keep abreast 1

of.recent court decisions!On the other hand, educatoi's may.find some solace in the \

fact ihat the courts no longer look upon them as glorified baby-sitters`responsible( only for keeping chilaren Off the streets.court recognition of student rights and the growing freedom,O'dependence, and personal responsibiliti those rights implyintlicate a developing respect for young people,New respectMust be granted alsO to those sOciety recognizes as profes-

zsionally capable of guiding these young people's education.But , as educators have discovered, emancipated students-

.

distrust the authority that once herd them down the respectteachers deserve must bi-earried. Working with students in ,

their search for independence rather than acting as their_antagonist'S' is neces:sary if they are to be cOnvienced that thedemocracy that gave them their rights is tru1y effective.

The Written Code s

, Of course it is easy to sa7 "work with students." How doesone go about it? Probably thaernost important step is to estab-lish a written code. This cOde should list and explain not onlythe limitations on student behavior but also the recognized,rights of students Ond the required procedures that the school'must follow when -disciplining students for violations. Ideally,.

1

studen 9(oul ibe aware of the reasons why. they 'have therighls th,ey eni y and should be aware of the reasorft for therulekrestrictin ineir behavior as well.

If students )articipate in establishing the rides by offeringsuggestions and voting on the resulting code, the rules' effec-tiveness can be even greater. It is One thing for a student todefy the administration with his felloirs lending moral support,and* is quite nother for that student to defy the expresseddesires of.his Ini+rn peers./ Apple andiBrady 'recommend as an excellent example the.'

bill of student' rights currently in use in Madison,, Wisconsin,and include a? copy as an appendix to their chaptersui studentrights. While!this bill of rights does nOt.state the reasons for therights, it clarly lists the major rights in the areas of speech,press, use cif-school facilities, conduct and appearance, politi-cal activiO, personal counseling, and even ehe right to a

; quality education. It is also precise:about the procedures all -parties)kust follow when rights of rules are challenged.

Apple 'and Brady also suggest a number of school policiesthat/6n, increase the effectiveness of the;code. All itudentsshould receive copies of the dociunent and be taught the rights

rules Scbool pei-sonnel ihould also be informed of their. eq.esponsibilities to the students and of the possible consequences/ ,of their failure to meet those responsibilities. Teacher training

sortie, of the burden for achievinethis goal.Apple and Brady.. believe-that educators should ldok on thecontroversy generated by honest cominunicaftqF with studentson ihese and other issues "as, signs, of' a jurst) and educativemilieu."'In fact, may Well be that the educational, experi-&ice of students engaging in the dispute W.rith others over rightsand obligations is . . . more important than-the gianting of the

, specific riglys themselVel."7

Suspension, Expulsion, and,Corporal Punishment

Despite all attempts to niaintain order through cooperationwith students, however, some serious disruptions will still

.occur, and disciPlinary measures will, have to be taken. Sus-pension, expulsion, and. corporal' punishment remain the

18 /

ct

'tnajor.'techotques- avanante w cw.u.dwA. ,........ . ,.,

._ behavior:problems.. 'A.i we have seen, though, the use of the

first-to of these Methods!must, meet stricter si'andards of due.--- ,

process than-existed before the Goss and Wood decisions.On theother hand, o e area of student discipline in whicht

in loco jmrentu still rei s supreme. is the area of corporal

punishment. Divoky Points out that although physical punish.=

ment of prisoners and Mental hospital patients, is outlawed, .

violence against studenti is still sanctioned. She notes that this

inconsistency is.'partly IL-the result of the continued public

support for corRoral Punishment in the schools, although the

pnblic does not apprcive 'of such punishment in other stateinstitutions. Pointing out th.at few states have outlawed it,,

Divoky states that several "have-enacted laws which expressly

permit its use.'" Thus far, the courts have failed to rule

--,,'decisively on the use of physical punishment in the schools

although .in sortie cases its apPlication by school officials was

upheld. . -

In their,1972 ACLU report, Reitman, Follmann, and Ladd

quite vividly, summariie case studies of abuse of children by,

teachers and administrators Using physical punishment as adisciplinary measure. In some cases, students ended- up in

hospitals for treatment Of ,injuries incurred when school offi-

eials applied such punishinent. The ACLU report emphasizes

that corporal punishment it, not effective a.s.`4 means of altering

student behavior and, indeed;can operate to aggra,Vate certain

behavior problems rather than to eliminate them.. As their,

report concludes,. .

The ttse of physicarviolence on school children is an affront to

democratic values and, i' constitutional infringement of indi-

vidual rights. It is a degrading, dehumanizing, and counter-

productive approach to the Maintenance of discipline in the

classroom and should be outlawed from edtwational institn-

dons. ..'.

It seemA Unlikely, however, that the law wit' change in theimmediate-future to definecorporal punishthent of students as -

"cruel arid unusual::Carter argues that none of the traditional disciplinary tech-

. -,

- :2 6

trigues hal; proved truly effective in all, gases. He .states' tint;'eclucatoril can 'begin -reeducatiiv 'society to the fact thatresponsibility is developed by disciplining -students throughexperiencs wilich enable them to see and understand the

cOnsequences of their behavior." He 'goes on tO Hsi' anuniber Of inschool discipline programs that have provedviable: "behavior modification counselor sessions, peerCounselini, alternative schools, the contract system, andplanned-learning experiences."

Flexibility on the part of school administrators is of primeimportance to the success of a discipline program, according toCarter. Principals set the tone of their schools and are respon-sible for seeing that disciplinary techniques evolve with theschool's ,and the students' changing needs. The. administratorshould treat each case as unique sand seek to determine withthe °student the reasons for bis behavior and possible methodsfor iMproving it. Such procedure will help to make sure thediscipline is effectively addressed io cauSes rattier, ihansymptoms and can also -encourage the :student to see theeducator as a positive rather than a negative force in his life.

.4"

,

,.

In view of the ambiguity that still Furrounds the definitionof student rights, the school administrator's position is not an -enviable one. While striving "to let the punishment fit thecrime," he must take care not to deprive-students of theirrights, even though the law is far from clear in many areas as tojust what those rights are. And, as suggested at the first of-thispaper, hard and fast definitions are not likely to be immedi-ately (if, indeed, ever) forthcoming.

The writers iri the area of student rights and studentdiscipline concentrate, not at all surprisingly, on the fine andmuch too fuziy line between student rights and school preroga-tives, as the courts have drawn it. In spite of extremely careful \shading, the line rerr ains remarkably hard to hold in focus. Ittwists and turns, dive; rrorn iis expected path, and some-times even appears in two 'aces at once. It deserves close andcareful scrutiny, yet this very examinition discloses that evenapparently solid portions of the line mae be mere shadows.

Untortunitely, this close attention to detail may bepreventing most writers from grasping the meaning of theconflict as-a whole. The issues at stake in the controversy overstudent rights are issues at- stake in the society-ar-large. Andinsofar as education has been traditionally regarded as thevehicle (and even the initiator) of -social change, the way inwhich these issues ate approached by the schools can haveeither a positiVe or negative effect ori the whole of Americansociety. If no absolute resolution is available, at least the issuesthemselves can be artkulately and intelligently, defined, byeducatois, and students.

Pertaps the vitality of our particular form of governnientand national philosophy lies in the continued, articulatedtension between authoritarianism and democracy,, control andfreedom; institution and individual. If such is the case, thenthe schools can become (and perhaps already are) an impor-tant means of achieving balance betwee'n these opposites.'

28. 21

LIIBLIOGRAPHY

Many of the items listed in this bibliography arc indexed in ERIC'smonthly catalogs Resources in Education (RIE) and Current Index toJournals in Education (CIJE). Reports in RIE are indicated by an "ED"number; journal articles in CIJE are indicated by an "Ej" number.-

Copies of most ERIC reports. but not journal articles, can ..be. orderedfrom the ERIC Document Reproduction Service. If a report is aV\ailable fromEDRS. its order 'number and prices are given. When ordeiing, pleasespecify the "ED" number. Unless otherwise noted, reports are availablein both microfiche (MF) and paper copy (HC). Please includel, cleck ormoney order payable to EARS.

Postage must be added to the cost of 'all orders. Rates are as follows.Microfiche: $0.25 for up to60 fiche and $0.10 for each additional 60. Paper

_copy: $0.25 for first 60 pages and $0.10 for each additional 60.Address requests to EDRS, P.O. Box 190, Arlington, Virginia 22210.

Ackerly, Robert L., and Gluckznan, Ivan B. The Reasonable'Exercise ofiitithority, II. Reston, Virginia: National Associatiortrof SecondarySchool Principals, 1976. 40 pages. ED 117 845 pF $0.83 HC notavailable from EDRS. (Available from NASSP, 1904 AssociationDrive,' Reston, Virginia 22091. $3.00. PaymTzt- must accompanyorders of less than $10.00.)

Anson, Ronalc0. "The Eduator's RespOnse to Goss and Wood." Phi DeltaKappan, 57, 1 (September 1975), pp. 16-19. Ej 122 528.

Apple, Michael W., and Brady, Thomas.-"Toward Increasing the Potencyof Student Rights Claims: Advocaey-Oriented-Policy Recomtnenda-cioris." Chapter 8 in Schooling and the Rights of Children. TheNational Society for tire Study of Education 4ries on ContempbraryEducational I.ssues; ediied by Vernon F. Haubrich and Michael W.Apple, pp. 198-207. Berkeley, California: McCutchan ,Publishing

' Corporation, 1975. Cgapter not available separately. Complete docu-ment, 214 pages, ED 114 988, not available from EDRS. (Availablefrom McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 2526 Grove Street, Berke-ley, California 94704. $9.75.)

Bohneier, Edward C. Legality of Student Disciplinary Practices.. Charlottes-ville, Virginia: The Michie Company, 1,976. 194 pages. ED 130 414.Document not available from EDRS. (Available from The MichieCOmpany, P.O. Box 7587, Cizarlottestille, Virginia 22906. $12.50.)

Brannon, Joan. "Access to Snolent Records;..Family Educational Rights and

2 9 -'90

Privacy Act of 1974." School Law Bulletin, 5, 4 (0!=berpp. 1_, 3-5. EJ 105 818.

-,.

Buss, William G. "Implication of'Gass re. Lopez and Wood v.Professional Discretion and Liability in Schools. Sec, .

Foundations."Purnai : Lal.I. and Education, 4, 4pp. 567-578. EJ 227 63:

Carter, David G. The School : 77-71 and th; Use of Mc:rat;si:on a Expulon as L.. , ....lazy Mea.sures. Pape- :,f,

Ai11\neri _ Educational Re-icarch Association anr......, 1Y

Francisco, April 1976. 2_ . , :s. ED 122 382 MF$.

Commission en Administratir -..' ..-naviors Supportive of . .unr,-,..zr As

(Phi Delta Kappa). "A ...Dle Student Code." Ph: J..c.--z. '.1, a, '

56, 4 (December 1974). .., 236-242. See,also p. 235::

Dellinger, Anne. "Sex Discrimination in the Public Schools: ".Education ArnendmCnts of 1972." School Law Ballet'1974), pp, I-3. EJ105 817.,

Divorky, Diane. "The Case against Corporal Punishment." L. Board Policies, 4, 4 (April 1973), pp. 1-4. EJ 075 620

Flygare, Thomas J. The Legal Riglzts of Students. Fa.sthac 9.

. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa :Educaticm n,1975. 50 pages. ED 112 477 DocuMent not availab 3.

(Available gom Phi Delta Kappa, Eighth and Ur_Bloomington, Indiana 47401. $0.75, prepaid. Quantk,eship discounts.)

Frels, Kelly. "1975: The:Status of Search and Seizure in the'Publ-:Chapter 9 in New Directions in School Lath, pp. 78-,. -ka,'Kansa;: Naileinal Organization on Legal Problems c1976. Chapter not available separately. Complete dc- 204 t.,..

pages, ED numberpot yet assigned, nor available from r: ail-able from NOLPE, 5401 Sotithwest Seventh Avenue, T.,- , .nsas

66606. $11.95.).

Gold, Barbara. "The Student Press An .Update." Inequaiir. m20 (July I 975), 'pp. 74-79. .

Goldstein, Stephen R. Law and Public Education: Casef.:_ amidContempo,rary Legal ,Education Series. fndianaproja: Mot, ., ' -rill

Company, .1..-aw Division, 1974. 944 pages. ED 102 i.,§"`- -Oci.ntr' lotavailame.from EDRS. (Available from Bobbs-Memir' t.;c1m.... Ic.,Law Divisiqn, 4300 West 62nd Sto reet', Indianapc ., 206.

-$18.50.) /.

Hazard, William R. "Courts in the Saddle: School Boarr. ''-, Delta

Kappan, 56, 4 (December 1974), pp. 250-261. EJ 1 C

...le

San

.3023

1..:tartia William R.. "Goss tr. Lopez and R''of.lc: krickland: Some Implica-tions for-- School Practice." fc-urr-.7.,-.: La.i. ancd Educatiot . 4, 4

. (October:1975), -13. 605-609. ET" '%.11

Joel F. "Stun= RfIghts an L. and the Cuni,culum.",Phi DeL.7. ./iaRn, 54, 4 797,4), pp. 248;250, 256.EJ 107 31.3.

171;:dgins,- FL C... Jr. Scl::.00l 7,_;!! nd ii.c CoL:rts: A RetsRetell ERS Mono: umber_ 3. .State-of-1i. ...:/edge Series, .,:. 30. .%..1ington; Virginia: xcd

Eugene: Research am: 'WC Clearinghoue or,.Educatior7 lanagement. Univer.7..7. of' C 1975. 104 pages.7--13 111 $0.83. -.HC $6_.(11 -!Q. from Ethicationaltcsearch 1:r:7,s-ice, Inc., 1815 .. ortr- .-r Drive, Arlingzott,.':ii-ginia =20. $6.00, Payment.,mu3 :cy orders of less tnan

no.Oo.)Jo!, -Ann Donald Student Disciplinc-

:Ter prestnted at Nationalpalls annunl conference, DaliMIF $0,83 I-IC $1.67.

Richard P. St1,:dent..,:hools To Change An

D.C.: National Sch3c,. Rt-12-1

'tat Makes Them Tick.:ondary School Princi-3. 8 pages. ED 07F 579

CoUrts Forcec..-,ecial Report. Washing-

Association, 1972. 67: dges. ED 071 MF SO.& not avaL.. ,e from EDRS,

-m-zo, Sharon L:, and Ober, 5.1.r -"Ltf:...7 Precedents in Studentaights- Cases." Chapter 6.The National Society for the y ofporary .E.:1-ucational Issues, :LtdMithael T; Apple, pp. 132-:Publishing Corporation, .

Complete document, '214 E. 11-

EDRS. from' M :nail' .

Grove Stret-_ Berkeley, Cali'. Jrr'-

Ladd, Edward T. "RegulatingCotiri." P..Y Delta Kappan

---EJ 069 809.

Madison, Jam'..!The Union as Aga., Domestic Faction andInsurrection -The Same -.,oritimam-.:, No. 10." In The .-Federalist. A Coimentary on the . :-1.c:,,i;l1on of the United States,Being a Collection of Essa,., urritte-. =z orct orthe Constitutionagreed upon September 787, the Federal Coiiiiention:-NYork: Random House, 1941.7. 53--

:he Rights of Children.:lion Series on Coraem--non F. Haubrich andCalifornia: McCutchanA availabrie separately.38, not available froming Corporation, 2526

Vithout Ending Up' in'1973), pp.- :304-309.

d

aherny. Patritia L and Rosario, Jose . 4...4.-It'AVice., and :the the -of

.the Child in 31-atory." Chapter 1 Schruwing the ofChildren. The :Cation.al Society for ie St4e4; 'tration. Series anCaraempo!-ary Educationa( Issuei, cc :ed by \ And

Michacl W Applie, pp. 1-39. Berke.. v. Carr:, `..fituf..:tan tb-

lishing Cor-yiration, 1975. Chapter 'not .7,-.Att

piece documemt, 214 pages, ED 114 988, lnum

(Avilable from McCutchan 2516 t,. ve

Street.Berkeley. California 94704. )Nolte. M. Chester_ Dtie Process for Studenzs, Teacheis

in Suburb= School Districts. Pape: presented attion of School Administrators National Confer(Supenrnanderns, Denver. July1973. _21 page:. Er D.HC S'..67.

31ai77tinit. traLors

'-an A-: ia-

for -Sul.,n.) wit

)an3.83

Nolte, M. Chester.: "The Supreme Court's New Rules fc.: 1}.. Prforc and

How (Somehow) Schools Must Make Them MA:T.:L. -an

School Boardfournal, 162, 3 (March 1975), pF. ' , t?'f

Lewy. "Today's Mandate: Policies That Flint: et.= of

Learning to Handicapped. Pupil's." Upaating5, 5 (May 1974). pp. 1-4..EJ 099 436.

Phay, Robert E. The Law of Swspension and Expulsz:-I ::nat-r; ofthe Substantive Issues in Controlling Studz= CLira. . -!, '...PE

Second Monograph. Series, Number. 7. EFLI:. CF.14 he-

Knowledge Series, Number. 32. Tolieka,National Organization on Legal Problems of .t- YRIC

Clearinghouse on Educatimal Management. Uniiyerrit.iti t- ..gon,

1975. 76 pages. ED 125 043 MF. $0.83 HC $4.:67.. (.=-4..1no :iable

from National 64anization on Legal Probl= air Edour-ith.- 5401

.Sotithwest Seventh Avenue, Topeka, Kansas tati6067).

Phay,. Robeit E. "1975 Student Discipline Decisioni by: tir !lite ::.atesSupreme Court." Chapter 8 .in Nev., Direnn:..,, inpp. 69-77. Topeka, Kansas: Nationa:j rob:

lems of .Education, 1976. Chipter- available le ,-;itetfc,

document, 204 pages. ED number n .]: yet assigtleti.. ::omNational Organization on Legal Proolems of Eilucattitr: :401 South-west Seventh Atienue, Topeka, Kansas 66606. $11;95; .)

Reitman, Alan; Follmann, Judith; and Lzdd, Edwar:iment in the Public. Schools. The Uie of Force rrt Ssone.ttolhns-.- Stt,dent

Behavior... ACLU Reports. New York: Amer,:.on. C4 JberrtiesUnion, 1972. 43 pages.,ED 066' 813 MF$0.83 HC, _ .064

Reutter, E. Edmund, Jr. The _Courts and Student C. ii Ct. E. CEM

State-of-the-Knowledge Series, Number 27. NC "E ?MonoTraph

3 225

Series. 'topaz. Kansas; ar...c. Eugene: Nadonal Organization onLegal Problems of Educatic..:1; ERIC Clearinghouse on EducatinnalManagement, Univ-sity of Oregon, 197:: . 104 pages. ED 102 641MF $0.83 HC $6.01. (Also available from NOL.PE, 5401 SouthwrestSevni.th Avenue. Topeka. Kansas 666(116. $4.95.)

Turnbull, H. Rutherford III, Legal A .4;ects of Educating the Developrmen-tally Disabled. ERIC/CEM State-of-the-Knowledge Series,' Number31. NOLPE Moloograph Series. Topeka, Kansas; and Eugene:National Organization on Legal Pooms of Education; ERICClearingliouse on Educational Management, University Of Oregon, !,

1975..59 pages. El) 111 049 MP $0.83 HC $3.50. (Also -availablefrom NOLPE, 5401 Southwest Seventh Avenue, Topeka, `Kansas66606. $4.95.) .

Weckstein, Paul. "The Suprenie Coup and the Daily Life of Schools: Implications of Goss v. Lopez." Ineguality in.:Education: 2!) (Juli 1975),pp. 47-57. EJ 122 550. . I.

Wedlock, Eldon D., Jr. "Pupils.7 Chapter 5 En The Yearbook of School LaW,1975, edited by PhilipK. Pick, pp. 105-152. Topeka, Kansas:National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1975. Chap-ter not available separately. Complete doeument, 294 pages. ED 114962 Document not available from EDRS. (Available from NationalOrganization on Legal problems of Education, 5401 SouthwestSeventh Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66606. $9.95.)

26

33