Well, we’ve talked about some heavy legal issues this week, so I thought I would take a moment today to wish all of those hardworking dads out there a Happy Father’s Day!

Hey, if the U.S. Supreme Court can take the summer off, then you certainly can have a day to kick up your feet and take a load off.  After all, being a father can be tricky.

Take the Idaho dad who was issued a no-trespass order from his daughter’s school district after he tried to pick the girl up without informing his ex-wife.  He was required to show proof that he could take custody of the girl, arguments and bad behavior ensued, police were called, and – BAM – trespass order entered.

This particular order prohibited the dad from entering upon any property or school building of the district and attending any school-related events.  It also limited all communications to email and/or written mail through the superintendent’s office.

Naturally, the father sued claiming the violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to direct the education, upbringing, and care of his child.  He lost on that issue, because it is well-settled that “if parents choose to send their children to public school, they do not have an unfettered right to access school property or school events.”

Case closed, right? 

Nope. 

The suit also alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to engage in constitutionally protected expression and activities, such as the right to vote, to petition the government for redress, and to peaceably assemble.

The court observed that when school property can be viewed as a “limited public forum,” the policy banning the father during those times must be “reasonable and viewpoint neutral.”  For example, in a similar case, the 9^th Circuit found that banning a parent from a school basketball game, to which the school invited members of the public, might violate the First Amendment.  In this case, the court found that polling places, school board meetings, and school sporting events are traditionally limited public forums because members of the public are allowed to attend.

The court did not rule that the trespass order violated the First Amendment.  Instead, it held that a jury would have to decide if it did under the particular facts of this case.  The court allowed the case to proceed.

DAWG BONE:  READ YOUR PARENTAL TRESPASS ORDERS CAREFULLY AND CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL.  AND ALSO…ENJOY YOUR DAY, DADS!

Mary Meyers, an English as a Second Language teacher, sued the Indianapolis school district for employment discrimination after the School Board voted to discharge her for insubordination and neglecting her teaching duties. Meyers claimed that the district discriminated against her based on her disability (ankle and back pain) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Several employee email exchanges were front and center in the dispute:

1. When Meyers complained about supervising the cafeteria due to her “lack of endurance,” the principal responded skeptically about her limitations.

2. The ESL coordinator informed a human resources supervisor of the principal’s opinion that Meyers was “a pain to work with” and should be reassigned. The email apparently amused the human resources supervisor, who replied “your email was cracking me up.”

3. Meyers was transferred and the human resources supervisor allegedly forwarded to the principal an email from Meyers stating that her colleagues had retaliated against her for having disability accommodations.

Also, according to some ESL students, the principal criticized Meyers for not meeting her students to take them to their tutoring session, stating: “she should get off her butt and come down here to get these kids. I wish that I could just sit on my butt too, but I can’t, I have to work.”

Meanwhile, Meyers’ principal cited her for a variety of infractions that ultimately led to her termination for “insubordination” and “neglect of duty.”  Meyers was suspended for calling her students “lazy” and “stupid,” recording them on her cell phone during class, and describing the principal as a “b___” to another staff member. The principal also had disciplined Meyers for not requesting a substitute teacher to cover a day she took off, reporting late to work on eleven occasions, and not completing assigned paperwork on time.

Ultimately, despite the disparaging emails, the trial court and appeals court agreed that the emails did not prove that the School Board was motivated by discriminatory animus when it fired Meyers.  Because the principal, the human resources supervisor, and the ESL coordinator were not “decisionmakers” when it came to Meyers’s termination, their statements did not show discriminatory animus led to her termination.  Their emails were just “stray remarks” not probative of the reasons for the termination.

Nonetheless, this is a good lesson in email writing.  Emails are discoverable in litigation and are fair game when the district is sued.  Heed this warning so you don’t end up in court defending a snarky email you wrote years earlier.

Meyers v. Indianapolis Pub. Sch. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners of City of Indianapolis, No. 17-2446 (7th Cir. May 30, 2018)

 DAWG BONE:  WHAT YOU SAY IN EMAIL MAY END UP AS “EXHIBIT A.”

Tomorrow:  A dad has a bad day.

This case, Ramos v. Webb Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 17-40826, 2018 WL 2422503  (5th Cir. May 29, 2018), arose out of the tragic death of O.R., a minor child allegedly involved in an improper relationship with one of his high school teachers.  The alleged relationship came to light when a teacher saw O.R. hugging the teacher.  The matter was reported and the principal and superintendent undertook an investigation.  Within days, however, O.R. committed suicide.

The parents filed suit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”). Finding that the family had produced no evidence demonstrating that either WCISD or its officials acted with deliberate indifference, the trial court dismissed the suit.  The parents appealed.

The Fifth Circuit observed that while the standards for school district liability under § 1983 for a failure-to-train claim and Title IX differ slightly, both required the parents to show that either the district or its officials in charge of supervising the teacher acted with deliberate indifference.

The court of appeals affirmed dismissal because of the lack of deliberate indifference and here’s why:

1. The district had policies to prevent teacher-student relationships and trained its staff regularly;
2. The teacher who observed O.R. hug the teacher “immediately” reported it to his principal;
3. The principal and superintendent promptly investigated, taking statements, talking to O.R., and questioning the alleged perpetrator;
4. The superintendent placed the teacher on administrative leave pending the investigation;
5. The principal continued to observe O.R. at school for any abnormal behavior;
6. The superintendent engaged law enforcement and asked an SRO to talk to O.R. to make sure he was okay.

According to the appeals court, deliberate indifference is a high standard.  To act with deliberate indifference, a school official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to the student’s health or safety.  It’s more than negligence or even gross negligence.  Instead, the conduct “must amount to an intentional choice, not merely an unintentionally negligent oversight.”  Moreover, even if a school official has actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm to a student, if he responds reasonably to that risk, he will not be held liable even though the harm ultimately occurs.

DAWG BONE:  TAKE PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE ACTION TO KNOWN RISKS OF HARM TO STUDENTS.

Tomorrow:   Would a court ever look at your work emails? 

Having a police officer in sight on my way to work, I was actually forced to drive the speed limit.  Booo.  As I moseyed along, however, another driver – on his cell phone mind you – blew past the both of us.  The nerve.  My mind wandered to thoughts of what might ensue if the car was pulled over, especially given the driver’s apparent disregard for the presence of law enforcement.

Having previously represented state law enforcement officers, I learned that detailed use of force policies dictate what kind of force can be used in a given situation.  Generally speaking, the force must be “reasonable” under the circumstances.

What about the use of force against students in the school setting?

A recent case out of the Fourth Circuit teaches us that in determining whether force is reasonable, Courts will look closely at all of the facts leading up to the force and consider a number of factors that include:

1. the severity of the crime at issue,

2.  whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,

3.  whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight,

and in the school context….

4. the suspect’s age.

The ultimate question is whether the totality of the circumstances justified the officer’s actions.

The case out of the Fourth Circuit involved ten-year-old E.W., who was handcuffed by an SRO three days after engaging in a fight with another girl on the school bus.  The investigating SRO viewed video surveillance showing E.W. and another student kick each other, and E.W. striking the other student several times in the arm, shoulder, and head.  The SRO questioned the other student and observed bruises on her leg.  When questioned, E.W. didn’t seem to care or think it was a big deal.  The officer then decided to take E.W. into custody to prove a point.  At the time she was handcuffed, the student was described as “calm” and “compliant.”  When handcuffed, E.W. began to cry.  The officer then decided not to arrest her.  E.W. was only in handcuffs for about two minutes.

Excessive use of force?

Yes!

The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures bars police from using excessive force.  The parties disagreed whether handcuffing E.W. was justified under the circumstances.  E.W. claimed that the physical restraint was unnecessary because the SRO didn’t have a reasonable safety concern.  The SRO, on the other hand, argued that she had probable cause to arrest E.W. based on the events depicted in video surveillance.

According to the appeals court, the SRO took a situation where there was no need for any physical force and used unreasonable force disproportionate to the circumstances presented.  The fact that E.W. was only handcuffed for two minutes did not persuade the appellate court.  Leading up to the arrest, the SRO simply observed the ten-year-old girl sit calmly and compliantly in a closed office surrounded by three adults.  The use of handcuffs in that situation was not objectively reasonable.

Personal liability for the SRO?

No.  The Court determined that, despite the constitutional violation, the officer was entitled to “qualified immunity.”  That is a legal defense that protects government officials from personal liability if the law was not “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue.  Because the law was not “clearly established” on the issue of handcuffing students under the facts in this case, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.  The court still wants school officials to know:

While [a school] officers’ presence surely keeps the nation’s children safe, officers should not handcuff young students who may have committed minor offenses but do not pose an immediate threat to safety and will not evade arrest. Unnecessarily handcuffing and criminally punishing young schoolchildren is undoubtedly humiliating, scarring, and emotionally damaging.  We must be mindful of the long-lasting impact such actions have on these children and their ability to flourish and lead prosperous lives—an impact that should be a matter of grave concern for us all.

The case is E.W. by & through T.W. v. Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2018).

 DAWG BONE:  GO EASY WITH THE HANDCUFFS.

Tomorrow:   Analyzing a school district’s alleged “deliberate indifference” stemming from a student’s suicide.

Okay, it may be a little cruel to talk cake on a Monday morning.  Statistics show that most people start diets on Monday.  It’s called the “fresh start effect,” because apparently on Mondays we are supposed to feel ready to conquer new challenges.

So let’s take this challenge: understanding whether last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of a wedding cake baker has any implications in school law.  The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Com’n, Dkt. No. 16-111 (June 4, 2018).

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. is owned by Jack Phillips, a devout Christian, who in 2012 refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages.  His stated goal in life is to be obedient to Christ’s teachings and honor God through his work.  He also believes that God’s intention was that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) under the state’s anti-discrimination law that protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation in a place of business.

In proceedings before the state Commission, commissioners stated that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public or commercial domains and one commissioner suggested that Mr. Phillips could believe what he wants, but he cannot act on his religious beliefs if he wants to do business in Colorado.  Another stated, “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history…And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.”

Having lost at every level, Mr. Phillips ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  According to Mr. Phillips, requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Commission demonstrated open hostility toward the man’s religious beliefs.  It also failed to provide “neutral and respectful consideration” of his sincerely held religious beliefs throughout the state administrative process, thus, violating his First Amendment rights.

Issues that weighed in favor of Mr. Phillips:  (1) at the time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage; and (2) the Commission had previously sided with other bakers who refused to bake cakes conveying disapproval of same-sex marriage, which showed the Commission based its decision against Mr. Phillips on his religious viewpoint.

While some commentators have deemed this ruling as a “narrow” one based on the specific facts presented, I think there are some takeaways relevant in the context of school administration.  This case presents two competing interests – the government’s interest in protecting against discrimination and the right of all persons to exercise fundamental First Amendment freedoms.  When those competing interests are at play, the Supreme Court offers this to consider:

The Free Exercise Clause bars even “subtle departures from neutrality” on matters of religion.  Here, that means the Commission was obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips' religious beliefs. The Constitution commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures.

This ruling does not endorse discrimination against same-sex couples.  Instead, the main point here is that the Constitution requires “neutral and respectful” consideration by the government of sincerely held religious beliefs.  This applies in the school context as well.

DAWG BONE:    BE NEUTRAL AND RESPECTFUL.

Tomorrow:  Handcuffing elementary students…a good idea?

 Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts once famously said “it is true that only Supreme Court justices and schoolchildren are expected to and do take the entire summer off.”  Around this office, I know summer has arrived when it’s Friday and the phone doesn’t ring because school districts have switched over to four-day workweeks.  Hooray!

For those of you reading this post bitterly from your desk in your actual, as opposed to your home office on a regularly scheduled workday, my apologies.  Just know that your friends, the attorneys and counselors at law of Walsh Gallegos are here right along with you, ready to serve.  Most of us are.  Some of us are.  You can definitely reach us on our cell phones if not.

I heard talk a couple of years back that TEA was giving some districts grief about closing on Fridays and maybe also about closing the week of the 4^th of July.  Your crack Law Dawg research team (AKA our tireless law clerk and soon-to-be Texas lawyer, Ms. Trilby Argubright) has run a few traps on this issue.  Good news.  Our search has turned up no evidence of a problem with, nor any guidance on the issue of summertime closures.

At this point, you might be expecting a sentence or two about board action, pros and cons, calling your lawyer, or some such.  But it is Friday, as noted above.  And it’s been a long week of writing about gender issues.  So, there’ll be no sentences.  I hope you all have a great weekend, whether long or short, and I’ll catch you back here in a week!

DAWG BONE:  LET’S NOT OVERTHINK FRIDAYS OFF

A federal court in Virginia ruled on Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board late last month, bringing us the latest installment in the saga of the bathroom case.  This round goes to the student, who successfully defended the school district’s motion to dismiss.

If you recall the case, the Gloucester County school board, facing significant pressure from its community, adopted a policy stating

[i]t shall be the practice of the [district] to provide male and female restroom and locker room facilities in its schools, and the use of said facilities shall be limited to the corresponding biological genders, and students with gender identity issues shall be provided an alternative appropriate private facility.

This policy came about after a period of several weeks in which a student born female but suffering from gender dysphoria and transitioning to become male sought and was granted permission to use boys’ bathrooms from his campus principal (not locker rooms – other arrangements were made for P.E.)  Community members found out and raised heck.

The student, Gavin Grimm, sued the Gloucester County Public Schools in 2015.  His case was initially dismissed at the district court level, that dismissal was appealed, OCR issued some guidance we all freaked out about, there was a presidential election we all freaked out about, the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, got remanded back down, Grimm replead and so here we are back in federal district court defending basically the same motion to dismiss all over again, but now with the benefit of a lot of history, a few additional facts, and some new caselaw.

The School Board’s argument from the beginning has been that Mr. Grimm’s case should be dismissed because his pleadings don’t even satisfy the essential elements of his claims under Title IX or 14^th Amendment Equal Protection.  As to the Title IX claims, the District argued that Title IX applies to claims based on sex discrimination, not gender identity discrimination – so essentially no violation of Title IX has even been alleged.  Regarding Mr. Grimm’s Equal Protection claim, the District asserted that there is presumptively no constitutional violation because transgender individuals are not members of a “suspect class,” which would require any governmental action affecting them on the basis of that class to withstand heightened legal scrutiny.

As noted above, Mr. Grimm persuaded the Court as to both claims.  For its part, the District Court premised its analysis upon similar cases but especially on the Supreme Court’s analysis in a 1989 case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. This is a Title VII employment discrimination case in which a female accountant was advised by her Price Waterhouse partners that she stood a better chance of becoming a partner herself if she looked and acted more like they thought a woman ought to – by wearing makeup, doing her hair, and walking and talking more femininely, for example.  Ms. Hopkins prevailed at the Supreme Court and it was, and is a big deal because she didn’t argue that she was discriminated against because she was a woman, she argued she was discriminated against because she didn’t conform to prevailing gender-based stereotypes.  Applying the same logic to Mr. Grimm’s Title IX and Equal Protection claims, the Court concluded that the School Board’s policy treated Mr. Grimm differently based on the incongruity of his gender with his biological sex, was therefore inherently sex-based, and thus he had sufficiently plead a claim for relief under Title IX and for heightened constitutional scrutiny (which the Court held the board’s policy couldn’t withstand), and should not be dismissed.

The Court’s order concludes by directing the parties to schedule a settlement conference, so there is a possibility this will be the end of the line.  The political interests are pretty well-funded on both sides, though, so we’ll have to watch and see.

The District Court’s order in Grimm is available online, but you’ll need to search for it by name and include May 2018.  If you’d like to check out the Price Waterhouse case, it is also worth a read and is easily searchable online.

DAWG BONE: FOCUS ON DOING THE BEST YOU CAN FOR THE KIDS.  THE ADULTS WILL STILL BE POLITICKING OVER THIS WHEN YOUR INCOMING KINDERGARTENERS ARE GRADUATING FROM HIGH SCHOOL. 

Tomorrow:  It’s Friday So None of you are at Work Anyway, Right?  Let’s Talk about That!

 I’ve conducted a little informal research, surveying the four people I know who are closest to this issue:  my three boys and my nephew.  They range in age from 4-11 and the verdict is in:  school without girls would be awesome!  Whereas I think it would be a huge detriment to their development to be educated in a single-sex environment at this point in their young lives, I suspect in a few more years, the boys and I may reverse positions on this issue.

Putting aside the perspective of the little Lords of the Flies in my life, is single sex education even legal?  Some of you are already doing it, so it must be.  Right?  Wrong.  All of you are doing it.  And it is legal, but only under limited exceptions to the general standard set forth in Title IX regulations:  “[e]xcept as provided for in this section or otherwise in this part, a recipient shall not provide or otherwise carry out any of its education programs or activities separately on the basis of sex, or require or refuse participation therein by any of its students on the basis of sex.”

This is pretty sweeping language, so when you think about the physical education programs, vocal programs, and sex education programs you are already running, keep in mind the authority for this is an exception to the general rule. 34 C.F.R. Section 106.34 lists the following exceptions:

• contact sports in P.E. or extracurricular activities (the examples given are wrestling, boxing, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and “other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact”)
• ability grouping in P.E. classes assessed according to objective criteria and individual performance without regard to sex
• human sexuality classes
• choruses (choir in Texas) may be organized according to vocal range or quality and the result may be a chorus of predominantly one sex or the other

Whole (nonvocational) classes and extracurricular activities may also be divided by sex but those offerings must be completely voluntary; must be implemented in an even-handed manner; must be offered along with a substantially equal coed class or activity; and must ultimately be based on the school’s “important objective” – to meet particular, identified educational needs of students and to further their academic achievement through diverse educational offerings (this should sound familiar if you read yesterday’s Blawg), provided that the single-sex nature of the course or activity is “substantially related” to achieving this important objective.  These requirements for single-sex extracurriculars apply to nonathletic activities only.  There are separate rules that apply specifically to interscholastic, club, and intramural athletics.

In addition, a district that offers a single-sex course or activity according to the standards described above “may” be required to offer a substantially equal single-sex offering to both sexes.  If you’ve got (or want to develop) an entire single-sex campus, you must provide a substantially equal single-sex or coed school for the opposite sex.

What constitutes substantial equality for purposes of evaluating curricular, extracurricular, or campus selection options?  The Department of Education considers the following factors: policies and criteria for admission;  quality, range, and content of curriculum and other services; the quality and availability of books, instructional materials, and technology; the quality and range of extracurricular offerings (for single-sex campus comparators); the qualifications of faculty and staff; geographic accessibility; the quality, accessibility, and availability of facilities and resources; as well as intangible features, such as reputation of faculty.

DAWG BONE:  WHEN IT COMES TO SINGLE-SEX EDUCATION, SEPARATE BUT EQUAL (AND OPTIONAL) IS THE STANDARD. 

 Tomorrow:  As long as we’re covering gender issues, we might as well catch up on the latest in transgender litigation. 

 Not only that, it reminded me of a fascinating case from my youth, United States. v. Virginia.  Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the Court in this case, in which it was decided that women should be permitted to attend Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a state-funded and at that time all-male military college.  This case was decided in 1996 and I remember it so well because 1) I was a high school junior living in Virginia at the time, and 2) my best friend and I – no kidding – almost ran over the VMI marching band in my ’92 Ford Probe when we went up to attend a “hop” (dance) that winter.  The fact that they were calling it a hop in 1996 tells you something about their commitment to tradition.  Founded in 1839 and unchanged to a striking degree since that time, the school’s reluctance to enroll female cadets cannot be overstated.

In the RBG movie, Bill Clinton noted that Justice Ginsburg’s SCOTUS nomination was approved 93-3, which is unheard of in the partisan political climate today.  In the case of U.S. v. Virginia, the lawsuit brought against the Commonwealth of Virginia was initiated in 1990, by the George H.W. Bush Administration’s Justice Department – not known for liberal rabble rousing.  It is also worth noting that the traditionally conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in hearing the initial appeal of this case, found in favor of the United States, noting that Virginia’s efforts to offer a diversity of educational experiences to students ought to extend to men and women alike and that the Commonwealth had offered no justification for its failure to do so.  The Fourth Circuit suggested three possible solutions:  1) admit women to VMI, 2) go private, or 3) establish comparable programs or institutions for women.

Virginia attempted the last solution, developing a proposed plan for women to be housed at Mary Baldwin College, a private liberal arts school.  The difference between the experience afforded by VMI (which is somewhat like four years of Marine Corps boot camp) and the proposed Mary Baldwin plan (more like four years at Girl Scout camp) was upheld by the District Court and by a divided Fourth Circuit.  According to the District Court, “[i]f VMI marches to the beat of a drum, then Mary Baldwin marches to the melody of a fife and when the march is over, both will have arrived at the same destination.”

This did not fly with the Supreme Court, which held both Virginia’s remedial plan and its underlying premise of gender-based exclusion from enrollment in a public college were unconstitutional on Fourteenth Amendment equal protection grounds.  The Court’s opinion as written by Justice Ginsburg required that any gender-based government action demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for that action:

Valuable as [the Mary Baldwin program] may prove for students who seek the program offered, Virginia’s remedy affords no cure at all for the opportunities and advantages withheld from women who want a VMI education and can make the grade… In sum, Virginia’s remedy does not match the constitutional violation; the Commonwealth has shown no “exceedingly persuasive justification” for withholding from women qualified for the experience premier training of the kind VMI affords.

It is worth noting that the Court’s opinion did not require VMI to lower its standards for female applicants.  The first female students enrolled in August of 1997, had their heads shaved and went to work.  VMI is now about 89% male and 11% female.

DAWG BONE:  EFFORTS TO PROVIDE A ‘DIVERSITY OF OPPORTUNITY’ CAN’T HAVE THE IMPACT OF PROVIDING THAT DIVERSE OPPORTUNITY TO ONLY ONE CLASS OF PEOPLE. 

 Tomorrow: The Relevance of this Decision to K-12 Educators 20+ Years Later

Happy Monday, Dawg Readers!  This is Christine again and to start off this week, we’re going to revisit a couple of items.  First, school safety.  You may have heard that this issue has caught Governor Greg Abbott’s attention and he has acted, issuing a “School and Firearm Safety Action Plan” just last week.  His plan covers a lot of ground, from immediate steps being taken by the State to suggested legislative priorities for 2019.  Here are some of the highlights:

• • • Increased law enforcement presence on school campuses. The plan includes recommendations to increase police presence on school campuses by allowing use of school facilities for breaks, lunch or office functions. The plan also recommends creating a pathway for veterans to help protect schools through a modified marshal program.
    • Modifications to the school marshal program. Governor Abbott suggests several potential legislative fixes to the existing law, with the goal of increasing the number of school marshals throughout Texas.  In the short-term, the plan also provides for grant funding for the cost of training from June through August of 2018.
    • “Hardening” of Campus Facilities. Noting that our schools are “soft targets,” the plan includes some interesting data and offers suggestions of structural improvements schools can make, pointing readers to the Texas School Safety Center for more information.  In addition, Governor Abbott commits to “prioritize $62.1 million in new federal funding toward immediate school safety improvements.”  These funds are expected to come from the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant Program (SSAE).
    • Mental Health Resources. The plan suggests that the existing Telemedicine Wellness Intervention Triage and Referral (TWITR) Project should be expanded by additional funding commitments from the Governor’s Office and the Legislature.  Per Governor Abbott’s plan, the TWITR project is essentially a model to help schools identify and intervene with students who pose a risk to themselves or others, or whose mental health conditions have led to behavioral problems.  The plan also seeks to improve access to Mental Health First Aid training and Behavior Threat Assessment training.
    • iWatch Texas App. Orwellian sounding name notwithstanding, the Governor’s plan calls for the expansion of this existing DPS app feature into a standalone app.  Doing so is expected to provide a more efficient mechanism for safety threats to be reported across communities, linked, and accessed by law enforcement and public safety authorities.
    • Student Discipline Changes. More legislative changes are recommended to expand upon the existing Chapter 37 offenses punishable by DAEP placement or expulsion, with a particular emphasis on assaults and violence on teachers and school staff.  With regard to restorative discipline, the plan also includes lots of “should” language about how DAEP programs ought to be improved.
    • Enhancing Firearms Safety. The Governor takes a strong Second Amendment stance, tooting his own horn on his various legal battles in service to the constitutional right to bear arms.  However, the plan does go on to note that [p]roposals discussed at the roundtables convened by Governor Abbott include the following action items to lessen the illegal and irresponsible use of firearms:
    • Closing gaps in information reporting for background checks by creating a case management system for Texas judges.
    • Encouraging the legislature to study the possibility of creating a ‘red flag’ law to identify persons who are a danger to themselves or others and who either have access to or own firearms.
    • Work to make sure that adjudications affecting the right to legally purchase and possess firearms are reported within 48 hours. This 48-hour requirement should also extend to protective orders and family violence convictions.
    • Strengthening the Safe Firearm Storage Law.
    • Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns.

Be on the lookout this Friday, June 8^th for guidance from TEA on possible grant funding for school marshal training.  In the meantime, check out Governor Abbott’s full plan online:

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/School_Safety_Action_Plan_05302018.pdf

DAWG BONE:  YOU NEED TO READ THIS BECAUSE THERE IS BOUND TO BE SOMETHING THAT WILL IMPACT YOUR SCHOOL.

Tomorrow:  We’re Back on RBG and Single Sex Education.