Suspension or Expulsion For Profanity At School? It's Supposed To Be Habitual

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

California parents can often be shocked when they receive a call stating their child is being sent home for five days for saying a bad word at school.  I have seen a lot of discipline matters centered around language, including swear words. However, unless the profanity is habitual, a suspension or expulsion may not be legal.

Per California Education Code section 48900(i) a student may be suspended or expelled for engaging in "habitual profanity."  Note the code does not say a child may be suspended for "profanity," but rather HABITUAL profanity.  This wording is important, and not always understood by the school imposing the discipline.

Habitual is defined in "thefreedictionary.com" as follows (adjective form):

1.  done or experienced regularly or repeatedly
2.  by habit
3.  customary, usual

In other words, habitual profanity must involve swearing as a regular activity of the student.  One slip up of saying the "F" word or the "S" word is NOT grounds for suspension or expulsion per the California Education Code.  However, easy as it seems to read the statute, I have seen discipline imposed for simply saying a bad word on a single occasion.  Technically, this is not a legal basis for suspension.

As it is often harder to remove a record, or reverse a suspension (suspension appeal), than to prevent a suspension in the first place, all parents should discuss language at school with their children.  Profane speech may result in a student having a permanent black mark which may haunt them beyond high school. Suspensions (and expulsions) must be revealed when inquired about by colleges, or even when seeking to enter various professions (even becoming an attorney).

Best,

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

California Sex Education Can Start In Kindergarten - Parents May Opt Out In Writing

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995


There is a lot to know about just WHAT is going on in schools regarding sexual education.  If you are my age (early 40's), you remember the obligatory sex education class in junior high school (mine was in eighth grade and our teacher read us "The Princess Bride" most of the class).  Times have changed, however, and sex education is now being initiated at much younger ages.  How young? Kindergarten, which likely encompasses four, five, and six year olds.

California Education Code section 51933 outlines the parameters for sex education in California public schools, and indicates that starting from kindergarten on up, kids may receive sexual education in the public schools.  This instruction has to be appropriate for all genders, races, and sexual orientations.  In other words, traditional sexual activities and domestic partner type of sexual activities may be instructed.

One may recall the story a while back of a class of San Francisco first graders attending the marriage of their female kindergarten teacher to another female individual.  This would probably fall under "sex education."  I don't recall ever being allowed to attend ANY wedding during school hours when I was growing up.  The story about this at World Net Daily states that two families opted not to send their children and the rest of the students attended.

Education Code 51933 states in part:

(a)  School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses.
(b)  A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education... shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
1)  Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate
2)  ...medically accurate and objective...
...
4)  [S]hall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities....

The code goes on, but these are the only sections I want to cover herein.  There are other codes covering AIDS/HIV instruction which I will leave for another day.  Needless to say, all types and forms of sexual activities may be instructed starting when kids enter school.  According to a 2003 survey entitled "Sex Education in California Public Schools," ninety-six percent (96%) of schools surveyed indicated they provide sex education.

Parents have a right, per California Education Code 51938 to excuse their child from sex ed instruction.  Parents must do so in writing.

Some food for thought, especially for parents of young students.

Best,

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Faceboook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

Suicide and Antidepressants- the Candace Downing Story

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Many parents are pressured to medicate their children who may exhibit symptoms of depression, so they can allegedly do "better" at school or in life.  Here is a video which parents should watch before they ever pursue antidepressants for their kids based on their school functioning or otherwise.  Know the side effects before proceeding with any medication.

Best,

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Faceboook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

California Charter School Case: Bullis Charter School vs. Los Altos School District

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Last week, the California Court of Appeals for the Sixth District handed down Bullis Charter School vs. Los Altos School District (October 27, 2011).  This case vindicated the rights of charter schools to facilities reasonably equivalent to other schools in the district.  This is an important decision for California parents and students as it will ensure charter students are not jipped and/or do not get stuck in small, run down facilities, with inadequate space for sports, child care, and students.

In Bullis, which interpreted the Charter Schools Act (California Education Code 47600) and Proposition 39 (Education Code 47614), the Court of Appeals granted Bullis' request for a court order to be issued to the Los Altos School District. Essentially, the court ordered the District to provide a "complete and fair facilities offer to Bullis from which it could be determined that 'reasonably equivalent' facilities were provided" (page 46 of attached decision- for you lawyer's out there, this is not the official citation).

The District had provided an offer of facilities to Bullis which was lacking in the following ways (among others):

1)  It selected the wrong schools to compare,
2)  Did not compare total site size,
3)  Did not consider three categories of space: teaching, non-teaching and specialized space in its calculations,
4)  Contained flawed and/or missing information on size/square footage.

In laymen's terms, the District's proposal basically compared apples to peanuts, and used flawed figures and percentages to make it appear that Bullis was getting an equivalent space, when they were not.  In fact, in the proposal, Bullis was required to share outdoor space, had no classroom for its seventh graders, and did not have child care space allotted, among other things.

This decision is a student victory and will be a boon to charter school students who have sometimes been stuck in facilities which were smaller or in worse condition than local public schools.  This is good for all students in California whose school choice will be even better than before.

Best,

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.