Youthful Offenders Who Lose Their Freedom Shouldn't Lose Their Chance For A Good Education When kids are locked up, what happens to their education? That question has no easy answer, say researchers who've tried to pin down state laws and policies for educating juveniles in corrections. A 2004 study by University of Maryland professors Candace Cutting and Peter Leone shows wide variations in state juvenile justice education requirements. One difference is how long incarcerated kids must attend classes. In Delaware, for example, juvenile offenders are required to attend school 35 days more each year than public school students. Arizona provides year-round school for incarcerated juveniles, and California requires juvenile court school to be held "every weekday of the calendar year, except holidays and inservices approved by the school board." Some states recommend education but don't require it: Florida, for instance, "strongly encourages juveniles in high risk, maximum risk, or a serious/habitual offender program to participate in an educational or career-related program." [continues 1448 words]
A Measured Response: An appellate court makes the right call on drug testing for employees. The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in 1995 and 2002 to uphold random, suspicionless drug testing of student athletes, and then of students in any competitive extracurricular activities, answered some questions about the constitutionality of drug testing. At the same time, they generated other questions: Does the Fourth Amendment permit random drug testing of teachers? How about random testing of students in any extracurricular activities? How about random testing of all students? [continues 1433 words]
The Supreme Court draws a clear line for school districts. The Fourth Amendment contains one of the law's great fudge words: It prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. But the very elasticity of "reasonableness" can be both a blessing and a curse for school officials. Sometimes, courts rely on the word to give school officials great flexibility, but in other cases, "reasonableness" proves to be a standardless standard that gives school officials inadequate guidance. School employees yearn for clear rules -- what lawyers call "bright line rules" that are so clear and broad that nonlawyers can easily apply them to large categories of cases. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision about random drug testing for students taking part in extracurricular activities has given school officials just such a bright line rule. [continues 2176 words]
Here's a two-question quiz: Should a school board take strong measures to prevent employees and students from using or possessing drugs and alcohol on campus and during off-campus, school-sponsored activities? Of course. That's easy, a no-brainer. But as soon as boards turn to the next question -- what kind of measures to take -- the complications arise. It's a question with no simple answers, as shown by the decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case from Savannah, Ga., Hearn v. Board of Public Education. [continues 1810 words]
