U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES: YOUTH'S AGE IS RELEVANT IN MIRANDA ANALYSIS

A youth’s age is relevant when deciding whether a person being questioned by police is in “custody,” triggering the need for a Miranda warning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision.
At issue was whether J.D.B., a 13-year-old special education student, had the right to a Miranda warning when he was pulled from his middle school classroom and questioned by a police officer. The North Carolina Supreme Court had ruled the teen was not in custody when he was questioned, so a Miranda warning was not required.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion, said age is relevant to the analysis and remanded for a new determination of whether the student was in custody. “To hold, as the state requests, that a child’s age is never relevant to whether a suspect has been taken into custody—and thus to ignore the very real differences between children and adults—would be to deny children the full scope of the procedural safeguards that Miranda guarantees to adults,” she wrote.
The ABA had filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that children, as compared to adults, have unique vulnerabilities. It is the third time in recent years that the ABA has filed an amicus brief on the unique status of children.

GEORGIA PHYSICIANS MUST DISCLOSE WHETHER THEY HAVE MALPRACTICE INSURANCE

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a law last month, requiring physicians to inform the Georgia Composite Medical Board if they are insured. The board will make the information available on its website as part of a physician's public profile. Physicians must disclose whether they are covered by insurance when asked by patients. If the physician declines to inform his or her patients, the physician is subject to disciplinary action by the board.

THE STATUS OF FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR GIFTED STUDENTS

Congress eliminated Jacob K. Javits grants for research on gifted and talented education in the fiscal 2011 budget agreement.
The Talent Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles E. "Chuck" Grassley, R-Iowa as S.857 and by Rep. Elton W. Gallegly, R.-Calif. as H.R.1674 has put forth a set of changes to incorporate gifted education in the next authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would:
• Overhaul the Javits research grants;
• Require assessments capable of measuring growth among high-performing students;
• Include gifted education in federal professional development grants for teachers; and
• Call for schools to include plans to serve high-performing students in poverty in their Title I or school improvement plans.
Sen. Grassley said he considers the bill "a marker for the upcoming reauthorization debate for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”
For more details on the bill, see Talent Act presentation.ppt delivered at the Senate.

Are some elementary and secondary schools discouraging the enrollment of undocumented immigrant children?

The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and Office of the General Counsel addressed this question in a "dear colleague" letter issued May 6, 2011. "Recently, we have become aware of student enrollment practices that may chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents' or guardians' actual or perceived citizenship or immigration status," says the "dear colleague" letter.
The letter cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on such factors as race, color, or national origin, by public schools. It also cites Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held a state may not deny access to a basic public education to any child, whether that child is present in the country legally or not.
The letter and accompanying materials clarify that schools may ask for birth certificates to establish age requirements, but may not bar enrollment because a child has a foreign birth certificate. Furthermore, schools may not deny enrollment if parents refuse to provide a child's Social Security number.

Justices Ask Obama Administration Its Views On Special Education Case

This week the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Obama administration for its views on whether a parent may bring a negligence claim against a school district that allegedly failed to identify a high school student's disabilities.

The justices asked the U.S. solicitor general's office to give its view on the issue raised under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The case involves an appeal filed by a California school district of two lower court rulings that the mother had a valid legal claim under the IDEA that the district had failed to identify her daughter's disabilities.

The facts in court papers show that when the student was in 10th grade, her teachers became concerned that her work was "gibberish and incomprehensible" and that she had failed every class. The school district referred the girl to a mental health counselor, who recommended that the student be evaluated for learning disabilities. The district did not follow the recommendation, and it promoted the girl to the 11th grade.

The mother later made a request for an individualized education program (IEP)for her daughter, and the district determined that the girl was eligible for special education services for a learning disability.

The mother brought an administrative claim under the IDEA, arguing that the school district failed under the law's "child find" requirement to identify the girl's disabilities sooner. That requirement obliges states to ensure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special education services are identified, located, and evaluated.

An administrative law judge largely sided with the family, ordering as much as 150 hours of compensatory tutoring for the girl's lost educational opportunities.

The school district appealed that ruling in federal district court, arguing among other things that if the family prevailed, students with disabilities would be able to bring "educational malpractice" claims against districts.

The district court rejected the school district's arguments, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, also sided with the family.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit panel rejected the school district's arguments. The majority held that there was a broad jurisdictional mandate under the federal special education law, and that in this case there was "willful inaction" on the district's part in the face of numerous "red flags" about the student's disabilities.

The appeal is Compton Unified School District v. Addison (Case No. 10-886). The solicitor general's office usually takes several months to respond to the high court's request for its views in a case.



A

U.S. Proposes New Education Privacy Rules

The U.S. Department of Education proposed new regulations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
The department proposes the following changes to FERPA: 



1. Tighter enforcement:
In the past, department officials said there has been confusion about whether agencies permitted to work with student data—but not collect it or work with the children directly—could be held to the same standards for protecting students' privacy. The new rules would require that everyone who has access to student data, even through an "exception" in FERPA, would still be held to the law. Those who fail to meet the requirements could see their grants withheld or be barred from student data-sharing for five years.

2. Directory information protection:
The department proposed that schools be allowed to have directories for limited uses, to limit the ability of marketers or identity thieves from accessing the data. For example, a school may collect data for a yearbook, like a student's name, grade, photo, and activities, but restrict that use to the yearbook itself.


3.State representation:
FERPA allows districts to enter into written agreements with researchers to use data to evaluate programs, but the department also would allow states to create such agreements on behalf of multiple districts. This would permit state officials to research the effectiveness of a statewide kindergarten-reading program, for example, or to compare the implementation of math coaches among districts. 


4. 
 P-20 tracking:
In keeping with the department's effort for better college and career readiness information, it would allow high school administrators to share student achievement data to track graduates' academic success in college.
The department launched a new division devoted to "responsible stewardship, collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of information at the national level within the Education Department."
Under the proposed rules, the department would define "education program" for the first time as any program principally engaged in the provision of education. The proposed rules point out that some early childhood, special education, and adult education programs are run not by state or local educational authorities, but by other agencies, such as state human resources departments, which often oversee Head Start programs.

Another provision involves student identification badges. The proposed rules say parents could not use their right to opt out of making public their child's directory information to excuse the child from having to wear a school ID badge.

Comments on the proposed regulations are due by May 23.
The department hopes to release final rules by the end of the year.

New EEOC Guidelines Revising The Definition Of A Disability Under The ADA

New EEOC guidelines revise the definition of what constitutes a disability under the ADA.

The guidelines, ordered by the ADA Amendments Act, significantly expand what constitutes a disability for discrimination purposes.

Prior to these changes, a disabled employee was required to show that a medical condition significantly limited a major life activity. Under the new rules, a disability can be shown by demonstrating that an ailment impacts a major bodily function.

What does this mean?

Now, a disabled employee can function on a daily basis and still receive ADA protection if the employee suffers from an endocrine disorder (diabetes), neurological condition (bipolar disorder), or an immune deficiency disorder (HIV).

Furthermore, if the employee suffers from a periodic condition, the employee is a legally disabled employee. Examples of a periodic condition are epilepsy or a condition currently in remission.

The EEOC ADA regulations apply to all claims beginning on January 1, 2009 according to Disability Scoop.

If you think you are a disabled employee under the new rules, and were denied a requested reasonable accommodation or subject to disability discrimination, you may now be entitled to compensation.