Mr. Superintendent knew that his news for the Nutmeg Board of Education would cause a stir – the Nutmeg Public Schools were looking at a deficit for 2015-2016 of around $1,000,000. While the warm weather had resulted in savings in the fuel account, special education expenditures were far in excess of the amount budgeted. To make matters worse, the unanticipated costs came from over a dozen new special education students, rather than one or two very high-cost cases that would have triggered some state reimbursement. Mr. Superintendent knew that he would have to “announce” the problem and related cost-cutting measures at a public Board meeting. But he did not want to surprise the Board members. So he sent out an email to the Board members, explaining the problem and alerting them to his plan to “announce” the projected deficit at the next Board meeting. The Board members had a couple questions, which they asked Mr. Superintendent by return email, and to which he responded, but by and large the Board members accepted the bad news gracefully.
At the next Board meeting, Mr. Superintendent made his public announcement. Nancy Newshound, ace reporter for the Nutmeg Bugle and astute observer of the Nutmeg Board of Education, was shocked and suspicious at how blasé the Board members were after they heard the news about the huge deficit. At the end of the meeting, she buttonholed veteran Board member Bob Bombast to ask what just happened. Bob played dumb and professed not to know what Nancy was talking about. But Bob cracked when Nancy questioned why Bob and the other Board members seemed not to care about such a significant problem.
“Well,” Bob admitted, “Mr. Superintendent gave us a heads-up by email. The Board has known about this problem since then, and everything is under control.”
Nancy’s eyes sparkled with anticipation when Bob mentioned email. “Thanks for the information, Bob. Under the FOIA, I want access to all of the emails of the Board members and Superintendent about budget issues this year. Are you going just give me your emails or am I going to have to make a written FOIA request?”Continue Reading SEE YOU IN COURT – February 2016
On January 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in T.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., — F.3d —, 2016 WL 229842 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2016), an important decision regarding the role of a planning and placement team (PPT) in addressing issues of bullying. Specifically, the court held that a PPT’s refusal to address bullying concerns through the PPT process was a procedural violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because it denied parents their right to meaningfully participate in the PPT process and the development of the student’s individualized education program (IEP). As the procedural violation impacted the parents’ right to participate, the court further held that the violation amounted to a denial of the student’s right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) recently issued a joint policy letter emphasizing the importance of improving school-based
Anne Littlefield has been quoted in an article on steps to consider when evaluating student misconduct. This article originally appeared in 
Earlier this month, trial court proceedings started in the landmark case, Connecticut Coalition on Justice in Education Funding v. Rell. The plaintiffs, several students in various towns and a coalition of towns, filed suit in 2005, claiming that the current system of funding education in Connecticut violates the Connecticut Constitution because students in some school districts are not receiving a suitable educational opportunity. In 2007, the trial court granted the State’s motion to strike several counts in plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that there is no constitutional right under article eighth, section 1 of the Connecticut Constitution to any particular quality of education, and finding that this issue is a non-justiciable political controversy. In 2010, however, a plurality of the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, paving the way for the trial that is now underway, some ten years after the case was first brought.
I need some clarification. As a new assistant principal, I am responsible for coordinating meetings with non-tenure teachers to give them the good news or the bad news about their tenure prospects. I took this really good school law course, and I understand that teachers receive tenure after they work for a district for forty consecutive school months. I also know that there are special rules about leaves and layoffs and such. In fact, I even know about “short track” tenure, when a teacher comes to us with tenure from another Connecticut school district. But the basic premise of tenure is clear — when you come to our district without tenure from your last employing school district, you need to work forty school months before you get tenure.
School districts have legal and ethical obligations to promote safe and healthy environments in which students can thrive. Victims of childhood sexual abuse experience myriad adverse health and educational outcomes. School leaders must consider prevention education as a critical strategy to improve the health and well-being of students.