Hooverlaw Blog



The Safe Schools Act: How far is too far?

Written by phoover on July 27, 2010 — View Comments

By: Cheryl Chado

Imagine the following situation: Dave is walking home from baseball practice and out of sheer boredom, takes a swing at a neighbor’s mailbox. The neighbor, who happens to be looking out the window, sees him and calls the police. Dave is arrested for malicious destruction of property.

Consider Bryan, a child with Asperger’s Syndrome. While at the movies one day, he runs into a classmate from school. The classmate, known as a bully, picks a fight and Bryan tries to protect himself. The theater manager calls the police. When they arrive, the bully has a more convincing story so he gets let off with a warning. Bryan appears to be uncooperative, so he is arrested for second-degree assault.

These are fairly commonplace incidents – you hear about them all the time. What you might not know is that within the following 24 hours, these arrests will be reported to Dave and Bryan’s local school superintendent, principal and security officer. The reported changes will be held in their record until they graduate from high school or turn 21. Even if the charges are later dropped, the result is the same.

But what measures, if any, will be put in place to keep the school system in check? For example, in the case of a sexual assault between two students at the same school, the perpetrator is not allowed to attend the same school or even ride the same bus. Though the perpetrator will be “placed” in a new school, not expelled, who’s to say that student will not be treated differently in his/her new school. And what about Bryan, who has Asperger’s Syndrome? Will he be treated differently under his Individualized Education Plan because of his brush with the law?

As of July 1, 2010, the law in Maryland states that if a student is arrested – not convicted, but merely arrested – for what is known as a “reportable offense,” the school superintendent, principal and security officer must be notified within 24 hours.

This law is otherwise known as the Safe School Act of 2010, which was signed by Governor Martin O’Malley on May 4, 2010. The history of Safe Schools dates back to 1995, when the Maryland Senate created the Student Safety and Support Act. The law stated that if a student was arrested for a reportable offense, the arresting law enforcement agency was required to notify the local superintendent of the arrest within 24 hours. The reportable offenses included more extensive offenses like arson, carjacking, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder and rape, robbery. It was updated several times over the decade to include crimes relating to the production or possession of destructive devices, references to arson and gang violence in schools, and to include private schools.

Michael Busch, Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, introduced the Act to cut down on gang activity and recruitment in schools. Prior to this update, Busch said, “the law [did] not require reporting for some crimes that [could] be indicative of gang membership.” However, the definition of a “criminal gang” under the Maryland Criminal Code is simply too vague. The law states that to be considered a “gang” a group of three or more individuals must “individually or collectively” engage in some sort of criminal activity. If a few teenage girls get together for a sleepover and make plans to smoke some pot, does that qualify them as a “gang”?  The law states the individuals must engage in “a pattern” or activity, but how many events does it take to create a pattern? Two? Three? If they make multiple phone calls to try and get the pot, does that count?  The law also states that the individuals must “have in common an identifying sign, symbol, name, leader, or purpose.” How do we determine who the “leader” is?  The girl who had the connection to a friend of a friend selling pot?  What if they called themselves “The Fabulous Foursome”?  Surely that would count as an identifying “name.”

This article is not intended to discount the value of the Safe Schools Act in any way – merely to illustrate that the specific wording can be interpreted in a number of ways, some of which can and will lead to unintended consequences for what are sometimes no more than harmless teenage indiscretions. Safe Schools also requires each local school system in Maryland to develop and maintain an inventory of student arrests. Our schools are already overburdened with an influx of regulations that play little if any role in the education of children. Do we really need more? Do we want our public schools to learn when our kids get in trouble with the law away from school?

Cheryl Chado is a rising third year law student at American University and a summer law clerk at HooverLaw.

Posted in Education, School Discipline



Cyber-bullying and the Constitution

Written by phoover on July 19, 2010 — View Comments

The Extent of School Officials’ Authority to Undertake Preventative and Punitive Measures for Student Bullying in Cyber Space

By: Kristen Kelley

Remember that big kid on the playground that always took your lunch money and pushed you around? He was the school bully and he existed in almost every elementary or middle school across the nation. But now, with the revolution of social networking sites and texting, almost anyone can be a bully.

The heightened use of social networking sites and electronic mail has elicited strong verbal and visual harassment that is arguably stronger than physical harm. It used to be that bullying occurred in the classroom, at lunch, during recess, or elsewhere — on school grounds. At the end of the school day, victims could escape from the inexcusable harassment endured during the seven hour school day. But the growth of the internet has allowed students to transport the bullying from school grounds to cyber-space — an area that not only follows the student victim everywhere, but also has the potential to be eternal and visible to the entire public.

The Supreme Court held that students do not leave their First Amendment constitutional protections at the school house door in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). However, the Supreme Court also said that such protections are modified by the safety and productivity of other students. In situations where bullying occurs within the school building during the school day, intervention by school authorities trumps students’ constitutional rights.

The Tinkers

But what about situations where the bullying occurs outside of the school house gate — namely on the internet, on cell phones, or on social networking sites? In these situations, school officials would appear to have limited say, since the occurrences exist in the realm of cyber-space, outside of their authoritative boundaries of a school building. Thus, is it simply a spatial and temporal inquiry whether school officials can implement consequences? For example, is there a difference between a student sending a bullying message through a mass text message while walking down the hallway to class and a student posting a harassing Facebook status towards a colleague in their own home on their own computer?

Currently, lower courts differ on the geographic inquiry of student-to-student bullying, but most courts give it little emphasis. In J.C. v. Beverley Hills Unified School District the court rejected the argument that schools cannot regulate a posted video because it originated outside of the school. In O.Z. v. Bd. of Trustees of Long Beach Unified School District the “fact that the Plaintiff’s creation and transmission of the [speech or expression] occurred away from school property [did] not necessarily insulate her from school  discipline” because “off-campus conduct can create a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption within a school.” But in Emmett v. Kent School District the court granted a preliminary injunction which prevented a student from suspension after he created a web page with a list of fellow students that a news story characterized as a hit list. The court partly granted the injunction because “the speech was entirely outside of the school’s supervision or control.”

State statutes greatly vary in addressing cyber-bullying or electronic harassment and whether schools should sanction students for such behavior.

Maryland defers exclusively to the schools to decide the means of handling these situations. Although Maryland does not reference “cyber-bullying” in its statute, it does define “bullying” to include “physical, or written conduct, or an intentional electronic communication.” Such communication constitutes bullying when it substantially hinders the educational productivity by creating a hostile school environment or otherwise affects a student’s well-being and when it either occurs on school property or “substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school.”

The Maryland statute undertakes a direct Tinker approach by mandating school officials to report bullying, including forms of cyber-bullying, even when the bullying occurs outside of the school walls. But the effects of the cyber-bullying must “substantially disrupt” the effectiveness and productivity of the school day. Courts have imposed this same test in reference to cyber-bullying. But how far does this imposition go? What constitutes substantial disruption within the school when the speech occurs in an unrestrained vacuum of cyber-space?

For Maryland, this is a matter of first impression. Under the Tinker test, as adopted in Maryland, intervention of school authorities to impose consequences on cyber-bullies is wholly permissible under the law. But the courts — where the issue has been litigated — have a different view. Though lower courts across the nation seem to agree that the Tinker substantial disruption test is the applicable analysis, some courts’ level of necessary disruption prior to the school officials’ intervention is quite concerning.

In one case, the court upheld a student’s right to post several messages on a website, some from home and some from school, regarding an upcoming volleyball game (Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. Dist.) The messages attacked a particular student from the opposing team as well as that student’s mother, with expressions extending beyond friendly athletic competition. Flaherty was disciplined by school officials pursuant to the student handbook which he argued was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The court agreed, holding that the school policy failed to distinguish speech that caused a substantial disruption in the classroom to warrant discipline. Even though the school policy punished student speech “when such conduct interferes with the educational program of the schools,” the court was not satisfied and said that the handbook did not “limit a school official’s authority to discipline a student’s expression to those instances where the expression caused, or there exists a realistic threat of, a substantial disruption to school operations.”

In a more recent case, student J.C. recorded a video at a restaurant with her friends, while she referred to a classmate, C.C., through name-calling and profane remarks (J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified Sch. Dist.) The video was then posted on YouTube from J.C.’s home computer, and J.C. contacted several students to inform them of the video. The next day, C.C. and her mother made the school aware of the video, interviews of students were conducted and J.C. was disciplined. The court directly addressed the issue of school regulation of speech occurring outside the school that has an effect within the school.

The court said that the fact that the video resulted in an upset parent, a student who temporarily did not want to go to class and five students pulled out of class for interviews did not amount to substantial disruption. Further, C.C. was not in any danger of being harmed and there was no disruption of classroom activities. Though failing specifically to define substantial disruption, the court said that it “must equate to something more than the ordinary personality conflicts among middle school students that may leave one student feeling hurt or insecure.”

Courts are treading a thin line by holding that student internet postings bullying, mocking, embarrassing and harassing other students are not significantly detrimental to result in consequences by school officials. The substantial effect of cyber-bullying is extreme and undoubtedly overflows into the school context when student victims of the cyber-bullying are unable to focus on their education because their minds are otherwise consumed. This inevitable result of internal harm causes a substantial departure from the educational mission within the schools.

The New York Times featured an article on a Facebook group created by middle school students aimed at scrutinizing a young boy who recently transferred to the school with ethnic slurs and remarks about his sexuality that caused the boy to become ill and miss a great deal of school.

The Gazette also ran an article describing three incidents where students were driven to commit suicide after suffering intense forms of abuse from cyberbullying on Twitter, Craigslist, Facebook and Formspring.

Certainly, this is not to suggest that students’ rights are non-existent. But those rights are also very much limited. The holdings above may be correct under the Tinker test, but cyber-bullying is more than minor instances of poking fun. Courts need to recognize the power of bullying on the internet. If the trend continues without defining the scope of substantial disruption we are going to find another case in front of the Supreme Court at a level similar to Safford Unified Sch. Dist v. Redding — that’s the case where a student was strip-searched by school authorities without the necessary level of suspicion. The Supreme Court held that a Fourth Amendment violation had occurred. In the situation of cyber-bullying, students are strip-searching each other of their confidence, dignity and self-growth. Disruption, though internal, does not seem more substantial than that.

Kristen Kelley is a rising third year law student at Catholic University and a summer law clerk at HooverLaw.

Posted in Education, School Discipline



Laywers in Love: Apple’s iPhone and iPad

Written by phoover on July 3, 2010 — View Comments

In recent months I negotiated crucial details of a plea agreement in a significant case with the prosecutor assigned via text messaging. No, I’m not joking, we actually conversed regarding highly specific details of the plea through texts.

It turns out the prosecutor was in trial with co-counsel and presumably had time to do this, or perhaps it was during jury deliberation. I went from texting on my iPhone to my office PC to my MacBook Pro, all the while corresponding through G-Mail text messaging. (On a side note, I forward all of my e-mails to G-Mail as a back-up, since Microsoft Outlook has not been the most reliable in the past, and I would highly suggest you do so too).

The texts were about a very hotly contested case regarding one of my teen offender clients. It was by far a first in my career, and if texting a plea agreement isn’t a first, then I don’t know what it is. In any event, it was actually very effective, quick and much faster than e-mail. As we were not in a position to speak by telephone, and the details were crucial and time-sensitive, texting was probably the best solution and in hindsight maybe the only solution available to discuss issues at this juncture in the case.

When my new iPhone 4G arrives — hopefully by the end of July — then maybe next time this prosecutor can negotiate and communicate via Video Telephone Call. For those of you who haven’t jumped on the iPhone revolution, or own a Blackberry, that’s the device on the new iPhone in which you can directly see the person you are talking to while you are talking on the phone. Think video conferencing in mini, on your mobile device. How is this possible? A camera on both sides of the phone.

Aside from the new iPhone 4G, which I’ve already ordered, I’m also very seriously thinking it’s time I order the cool new Apple iPad (some lawyers think the Internet is still a “new” thing) for my practice.

I’ve been reading and hearing all kinds of promising reports and stories detailing how quickly trial attorneys take to this unique one-of-a-kind digital device. If you’ve used the iPhone for any time, you’ve surely wished it was just bigger when doing things like typing, reading email or web surfing. But small as they are, the fact is, most of the time it’s just quicker and easier to use the iPhone over the Mac Book Pro I carry around.

Sure, I’ve loved my iPhone 3G and am looking forward to handing it off to my youngest who is headed for college in the fall, but it seems to me the iPad is really no more than a much larger version of Apple’s newest must have: the iPhone 4G. In fact, the two devices each use the same CPU chip, which is exactly the beauty of the thing.

Besides, a number of really bright techie lawyers from all around the US have already developed apps and tricks for iPad use in the courtroom. I’m not kidding. And I just can’t wait to see the look on opposing counsel’s face and the expression change on the judge’s mug when I pull a new iPad from my case and start to navigate my way through the case with only my finger. Oh, and of course my mouth, which for those who know me, can attest, is a thing rarely at rest.

Posted in Tech | Tagged , , ,



PGCPS Adopts Total Student Cell Phone Ban

Written by phoover on June 24, 2010 — View Comments

The school board for Prince George’s County Public Schools’ recently adopted the most sweeping student cell phone ban of any other local school system in the Washington, DC region. http://bit.ly/cZzBO7.

Could it be the PGCPS Board of Education is concerned about much more than annoying ringtones too often heard during class when they cause a
disruption like the loudly ringing cell phone sounds in a busy classroom?

Posted in Juvenile Court, School Discipline | Tagged , ,



HooverLaw June E-Newsletter

Written by phoover on June 10, 2010 — View Comments

HooverLaw June E-Newsletter

Posted in Uncategorized



MCPS deal with Pearson may lower education standard

Written by phoover on June 9, 2010 — View Comments

By: Patrick J. Hoover

When I got into work this morning I began my regular routine: Start up my computer, make coffee, check my e-mails and calendar, browse the national and local news. That’s when I stumbled upon an article in The Washington Post about MCPS’s new $2.25 million deal with Pearson to develop an elementary curriculum that can be sold and duplicated around the world.

This headline was a surprise, to say the least. If you’ve been reading The Post, or even The Montgomery County Gazette lately then you’ve probably noticed that MoCo is in deep financial trouble. Not to mention, the MCPS budget, which calls for massive cuts including larger class sizes and less teaching positions, was approved by the school board yesterday.

But it looks like all is not lost for MCPS. The decision to sell MCPS’s foundation curriculum, which, if I may add, draws a lot of residents to the county, was also approved by the school board yesterday — with a vote of 6 to 2, no less.

With MCPS bleeding money, the school board obviously had no choice but to sell itself to the highest bidder. Superintendent Jerry D. Weast said it himself to The Post : “I tend to look at it from the standpoint that we are broke… You have to have new ways of doing things when you don’t have money.”

But what will this mean for the parents of children who attend a school in Montgomery County? Is the unique character and award-winning facets of an MCPS education lost?

Parents of younger, elementary-age in Montgomery County should be worried. The MCPS gatekeeper is one of the strictest in the State, barring many students, who it sees an unqualified, from receiving a free and appropriate public education in Montgomery County (remember Jeff Sukkasem?). It is almost as if MCPS has kept its high-scoring, nationally renowned curriculum under lock and key for the past decade and now it is offering it any county that can pay. Not that Prince George’s County Public Schools is doing much better fiscally, but what would happen if the same curriculum was implemented there?

Parents, teachers and administrators in other counties may be rejoicing at the fact that they too can give their students a MCPS education without having to actually live within the county’s borders. But what will that mean for the standard of education? MCPS’s deal with Pearson is one of the largest in history. Yes, it will bring more media attention to MCPS by branding the education. Yes, it will bring more money and resources to help MCPS improve its at-home curriculum. But, isn’t there something to say for exclusivity? If any school district can buy a high-scoring curriculum, then the standards which MCPS has been held up to for the past few years as it has trumped other counties on a national level will be depreciated.

Although MCPS will still have control over the curriculum in its own classrooms, Pearson will have final say once the curriculum is in its hands. MCPS’s personal curriculum will act as a show boat for Pearson execs to show off to other superintendents.

And all that for a couple million right off the bat and a guarantee of 3 percent in royalties on sales. Good job, MCPS. What will you auction off next? Your teachers?

Posted in Education, Residency & Public School | Tagged , , ,



The ABCs of IEPs Part 3: Drafting the IEP

Written by phoover on June 8, 2010 — View Comments

By: Patrick J. Hoover

So your school has now agreed to qualify your child for her own Individualized Education Plan (IEP). What’s next?

Sorry, but this is no time to relax. Not yet. Now is the time to get down to the nitty gritty. You will need to determine exactly what your child’s special needs are and what her school will need to provide in order for her to have a successful education. As a parent, your challenge is making certain that the IEP team does its work and has completed a well-researched, thorough IEP which clearly spells out all the critical details that will make it possible for your student to receive a real and meaningful education.

Now, the IEP team must determine exactly what services, accommodations and placement and programming choices are necessary for your child to succeed in school. The answer to that vital question should be found within the finished IEP. Of course, the IEP will only be formally written after its many parts are thoroughly discussed by the entire IEP team.

You will hold a meeting, either immediately following the determination of eligibility for special education services, or at a later date — the more likely option. I’ll say it again, as difficult as it may have been to carry your child through the formal special education evaluation process and the preliminary IEP meetings, unfortunately you’re work is only now really begun. If you have not yet done so, you should consider advantage in securing the help and guidance of a professional.  Having an experienced ally at the IEP meeting, like a skilled advocate or special education attorney, will help bring big returns to both your immediate stress level and to the final IEP product.

Team players

Hopefully, you have by now come to know the school members of the IEP team.  Those preliminary meetings should have left you with an idea of where each of the team members stands.  The team will assemble again but this time to draft your child’s IEP. That same IEP team will remain in place as your IEP team for the remainder of your child’s special education career. It’s worth remembering that your child’s IEP team must be made up of certain members in order for the meeting to take effect. The IEP members include you and anyone else you choose to bring — either for moral support or better yet, for expertise. In addition, the law requires the IEP team to consist of a general education teacher from your child’s school, a special education teacher, a school administrator authorized to make binding decisions on behalf of the school district and other specialists that may be of assistance.

Despite what many schools mistakenly but routinely dictate to parents as the law, your child need not and I believe, should not, be present in the conference room for any part of the formal IEP meeting.  It is only where you have an older teen, at least 18 years old, that the student may decide to what degree, if any, they wish to participate in the IEP process. Where appropriate, I sometimes have students come in to meet the team at the very beginning of the meeting and then leave the meeting room.  It can be helpful to the school’s team members to hear a few words from your child about their concerns in school.  I almost never think it wise for any, but the most mature student, to take part in the full meeting of the IEP team. A kid is hardly benefitted by sitting through an often lengthy meeting and hearing a room full of adults discuss their most personal characteristics. Bad idea.

The IEP template

The job ahead for you and your IEP team is to fill out the IEP form; to draft your child’s IEP documentation. The typical IEP document is in reality an extensive form of anywhere from 25 to 50 pages in length depending on the special circumstances of your child/student. I frequently see completed IEPs that rival a moderately complex IRS tax return. Virtually every state school system has a copy of its blank IEP form available on its official Web Site. You should take a look at it. You’ll be using this format in subsequent meetings with your child’s IEP team, at least annually, if not more often, for potentially years to come.

The individual  designated chair of the IEP team is responsible for taking you through every page of the IEP form and process and should address all issues specific to your child. If not, it will be up to you as the parent to bring these issues to the attention of the IEP team as they come up during the meeting. The word “Individualized” appears first in the IEP acronym.  That was not accident. When the IEP process operates as designed, there is little that can be more unique and personalized in your child’s education than the finalized IEP. It will quite literally serve as the roadmap for the rest of his/her educational career. Remember, the well drafted and fully completed IEP will serve to provide your child with the real tools she will need to actually learn and progress each year. The basic idea in Special Education is that each teacher who comes in contact with your child is fully aware and has closely read your child’s IEP.

The first page of the IEP form states basic information about the child, parent and the primary disability. Frequently there are children that have multiple disabilities, but the federal form requires that the IEP identify the one primary disability if there is more than one problem with your child. The next part of the IEP form asks about your child’s present level of ability. Present levels refer to your child’s recent evaluation and findings of experts, usually psychologists, in identifying the special needs of your child. The disability found on page one and the present levels which appear in the following pages can run the gamut from dyslexia and other well studied learning disabilities to autism and other profound mental disorders. Other children may qualify for special education due to emotional disabilities or mental illness, but the main requirement for special education services is that the disability is permanent.

Also found within the first few pages of the child’s IEP is a section on parental concerns. Here is your opportunity to present the IEP team with a concise run down of the issues as you see them. But hold your arguments about your child’s placement until later, since that issue is not brought up until the end of the meeting.

Go for the goal


IEPs are all about Annual Goals. So the next big piece you will encounter in this document is your Child’s Annual Goals and Objectives. It may help to have a list of goals for your child prepared and furnished to the team in advance.

It’s probably worth stating at this point that many states including Maryland have gone to a system of online IEP creation. This project is mandated from the federal government but the practical difference to you is very real. In order to do a thorough preparation and analysis prior to your child’s IEP meeting you should not only get a copy of the IEP form, but you should also explore the online service. The Web Site is overflowing with information and suggestions that can be incorporated in your child’s IEP. I encourage you to access this so you may become familiar with what’s out there.

At the end of the year it’s these Annual Goals and Objectives that will be measured by you and the IEP team in order to evaluate whether your child is receiving adequate services under the law. These may include basic things such as learning to count to 50 or learning to pronounce the alphabet, in cases of younger children. These may also call for academic mastery in higher forms of study, assertiveness training, socialization goals, organization and much more.

Always remember that you’re entitled to ask for an IEP meeting at any time during the school year if you have reason to meet. At a minimum, the school should require that there be at least an annual IEP meeting in which the team discusses the prior year and the coming year. And it’s right now that special education lawyers become busiest. When parents realize they are either dissatisfied with the education provided or the proposed plans for the coming school year, that’s when they will bring in an education advocate.

Be prepared

Unfortunately, just as you may have experienced in the preliminary meetings, disagreements may occur between you and the IEP team. Decisions as to what goes into the IEP are supposed to be made by consensus of the IEP team, but things do not always go that way.

Federal law requires that the parent receive 10-day written notice prior to the IEP meeting. This notice is very important if only to prevent parents from being unprepared for the meeting.

Say what you will about the state of the world and involving lawyers in public education, but the fact of the matter is there is a reason school systems have their own lawyers on staff who are experts in special education. Be warned, if you walk into this IEP meeting by yourself, unprepared, without any knowledge in place you can expect to be mowed over. Alone, the education-speak and alphabet soup talk amongst the adults at this table is overwhelming to the average person. It is only someone educated in this process, the IDEA and the state and federal laws that govern IEPs that can be truly helpful.

If you want to ensure that your child’s interests are heard loud and clear bring an advocate, bring an educator, bring a friend, or if appropriate bring an attorney who is experienced in the field of special education law.

On a final note, here are a few things to remember as you are walking into the IEP meeting to draft the IEP for the first time:

- Be certain you have read all recent evaluations and you’ve carefully reviewed these along with your child’s report cards and other records.

- Be certain you have copies, as does the school, of all recent evaluations.

- Be certain you have gotten a copy of the draft IEP (most schools prepare a draft which they circulate among themselves before the meeting) and make sure you understand it.

- Consider drafting proposed Annual Goals and Objectives and share a copy of your draft with the school several days in advance of the meeting.

- Be prepared to spend at least two hours at the meeting and don’t be afraid to ask that the meeting be continued to another day if it’s not complete in one sitting.

- Do not sign the IEP until you have had time to review it. Politely explain that you want to see a completed draft of the proposed IEP and review it for a few days. Be aware schools often threaten to withhold services, but don’t believe it. You have at least a day or two to consider it. But understand if you don’t sign the IEP at some point soon after, then by law the school system is prohibited from providing any of the services proposed for your child in the IEP.

- Consider asking the team to schedule a follow-up meeting to review your child’s progress under the newly drafted IEP document. That way you can more quickly answer the question if the IEP is working, should be tweaked in any way, or is perfect as is.

Good luck!

Posted in Education, Evaluations, IEP's



Join our e-mail list!

Written by admin on June 8, 2010 — View Comments

Send an e-mail to sgates@hooverlaw.com if you are interested in receiving  monthly e-newsletters and education and juvenile justice updates.

Posted in Uncategorized



Cell phone use in school should be a compromise, not a ban

Written by phoover on June 8, 2010 — View Comments

By: Patrick J.  Hoover

As parents we’ve all done it. And by it, I’m referring to calling or texting our kids during school hours. Yes, it’s frowned upon, and yes, you can still reach them by calling the front office, but should we really have to go through all that trouble just to ask, “Hey, how’s your day?”

Despite recent measures by Maryland and D.C. school districts to stop students from sexting during class, while incidentally impeding parents’ ability to get in quick contact with their children, students continue to sneak texts under their desks. Though some teachers and administrators catch the cell phone slips, a majority of texters go unnoticed.

In the age when news is no longer passed by word of mouth, and is instead texted or tweeted, districts are making a clear misstep by banning cell phone use during the school day. This problem can’t be resolved by opening the flood gates and allowing total cell phone use, or by completely banning any devices from school property, but there should be some sort of an in-between for parents to contact students.

So why not open cell phone use up at lunchtime or during class breaks? Watkins Mill High School senior Quratul-Ann Malik raises this point in her proposal to allow cell phone use during lunch.

“They got rid of pay phones a couple years ago in high schools,” Malik said to The Washington Post.  “The reason they got rid of pay phones is because of cell phones. But students aren’t allowed to use them.”

I can guarantee I’m not alone in my irritation that I can’t get in touch with my sons for seven or eight hours during the school day. As an education attorney, the school’s argument is apparent: Administrators want to stop any distractions cell phones may cause, decrease cheating and prevent sexting during school hours.

Though Malik’s proposal has gotten a flurry of community response, and a great deal support by students in the area, it’s unlikely that the stiff school boards will move to allow cell phone use during a dedicated period of time during school hours.

I’m not pledging my support of texting in class or breaking the rules, but if the school districts continue to vehemently deny students the privilege of even carrying their cell phone it’s only going to make the problem worse. Like it or not, kids are going to do what they are going to do. And by pushing them to leave their cell phone off in their locker or book bag, they are only going to push back harder. It’s been a while since I’ve been in school, and cell phones weren’t even around back then, but if an administrator told me I couldn’t have my cell phone during school hours I would probably sneak a text too.

Posted in Education, School Discipline



CUA law student has passion for education law

Written by sgates on June 3, 2010 — View Comments

By: Sara Gates

Many people become litigators because they love to argue.

But for Catholic University law student Kristen Kelley, the largest part of her love for the law is simply the adrenaline rush.

“I won a state championship back in high school,” Kelley said,” and when I’m in the courtroom I get the same adrenaline rush that I got that day, which is huge.”

Kelley entered her first year at Dartmouth College and was intent on becoming a journalist. She sought out the school newspaper and declared English as her major. It was not until her sophomore year that she became enthralled in political theory and the law and decided to declare a second major in government.

Skip to two years later. Kelley graduated from Dartmouth with stellar marks and moved to Manhattan to get her feet wet in the legal world. She landed a job as a paralegal in the litigation department at the international law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf, the 8th largest in New York City. Kelley was familiar with competition in athletics, but the intensity of the other employees provided her with a new challenge.

However, the level of competition did not turn her off to law school and only pushed her to apply herself more in preparation. After two years doing her due diligence in New York, Kelley threw herself into law school.

“It’s a challenge in the sense of how the classes are conducted,” Kelley said referring to the Socratic Method of teaching. “My first semester was a whirlwind.”

Kelley chose CUA because of her curiosity in public interest law. She also returned to her love of writing and joined the school Law Review. Though CUA is nowhere near the size of Dewey, Kelley said it was the perfect choice for her because she was able to excel and make strong relationships with her professors.

With one year left at Catholic’s Columbus School of Law, Kelley plans to look for a job in litigation in New York or Washington D.C. Though she does not know what type of litigation she will practice, she is leaning toward criminal defense, but goes back and forth between defense and prosecution every day.

But the one thing she does know is that has a passion for special education law, and will continue to work in that area, even if it’s pro bono.

“Education is absolutely the most important thing anyone can receive,” Kelley said. “That is a field of law that is so crucial.”

*Kristen Kelley is a summer law clerk at HooverLaw.

Posted in HooverLaw, LLC





« Older Entries

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