OF
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
This research paper deals with the legal liabilities of school administrators, primarily school board superintendents, principals and assistant principals to third parties. The emphasis is on the public schools through grade K-12. Traditionally, school board administrators were largely insulated under state law from liability. Since the 1970s, the liability exposure of school districts, school administrators and teachers has exponentially expanded. Largely due to the effects of various forms of federal intervention in the public schools and the creation and enforcement of private federal causes of action against them, the task of school administration has become highly legally intensive and the relationship between public school officials and students and parents has become much more adversarial. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the pendulum in public education shifted to a concern over educational standards and greater local, including greater parental, control over school decisions. The latter trend has only served to complicate the legal position of school administrators. Traditional Liability Exposure of School Administrators Traditionally, courts have been reluctant to interfere with the exercise of discretion by school districts, administrators and teachers, except in cases involving egregious abuses, a lack of good faith or other violations of state law. At one time, public school administrators (but not teachers) were exempt from civil liability to students or others under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. According to Tanner (1972), the general rule was that "school districts and municipalities are not liable for pupil injury" (p. 525). State statutes insulating these bodies and officials from civil liability remain in effect in a number of states, especially in the South and Southwest. This immunity has been revoked or diluted by decisions of state courts in many others. If immunity is applicable, a
References: Bartlett, L. (1993, Winter). Economic cost factors in providing appropriate public education for handicapped children. Journal of Law and Education, 22, 27-60. Bartlett, L. P. (1992, Fall). Recent developments in public Education law Bittle, E. H., Helms, L. B. & Norton, M. (1995, Fall). Recent developments in public education. Urban Lawyer, 27, 897-941. Brockett, D. (1995, April). Iowa 's inclusion infusion. Education Digest, 60, 29-31. Carlson, M. (1996, October 21). No more teachers ' silly rules. Time, 27. Chmelynski, C. (1996, March). Is paddling on the way back? Education Digest, 61, 49-51. Davison, M.D. (1985, January). Introduction to symposium: Brown v. Board of Education after fifty years: confirming the promise. William and Mary L. Rev., 36, 337-343. Delatter, E. J. (1988). Education and the public trust. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center. Desiltes v. Clearview Bd. of Educucation, 647 A.2d 150 (1994). Doe v. Taylor Indiana School District, 987 F.2d 231 (1993), 15 F.3d 443, certification denied, 115 S. Ct. 70 (1994). Donohue, J. (1991, January 13). Brandishing the rod. America, 174, 4-5. Gerstmyer v. Howard County Public Schools, 850 F.Supp. 361 (D.Md. 1994). Good News/ Good Sports Club v. School District of Ladue, 28 F.3d 1501 (8th Cir. 1994). Grandinetti, L. M. (1990, Fall). Twenty-five years later: schools and school districts-discipline of students- committee may compel a 'proper haircut ' as part of mode of dress. New England L. Rev., 25, 215-232. Gursky, D. (1996, March). 'Uniform improvement. ' Education Digest, 61, 46-48. Hardaway, R. M. (1995). America goes to school. Westport, CT: Praeger. Hazard, W. (1978). Education and the law: cases and materials on public schools. New York: Macmillan. Kaufman, J. M., Lloyd, J.W., Baker, J. & Riedel, T. M. (1995, March). Mentally and emotionally disabled children in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 542-554. Lane, F. Jr. (1995, Spring). Sexual misconduct of school employees: supervisory school officers ' liability under Section 1983. School Bulletin 9-16. Lowell v. Poway Unified School District, 847 F.Supp. 780 (S.D. Calif. 1994). McNary-Keith. (1995, winter). Aids in public schools: resolved issues and continuing controversy. Journal of Law and Education, 26, 69-80. Murphy, M. M. (1990, Spring). Special education of children with HIV infection: standards and strategies for admission to the classroom. Journal of Law and Education, 20, 345-370. Newman, J. W. (1990). America 's teachers an introduction to educators. New York: Longman. Parsons, L. & Jordan, T. (1994, Spring). When educational reform results in educational discrimination: a case in point. Journal of Law and Education, 24, 211-231. Pryor, E. S. (1986). Student competency testing in Texas. St. Mary 's L. J., 16, 281-298. Reamey, G. S. (1988, Winter). New Jersey v. T.L.O.: the Supreme Court 's lesson on school searches. St. Mary 's L. J., 16, 933-949. Recent developments in the law. (1990, Spring). Journal of Law and Education, 20, 253-272. Recent developments in the law. (1988, Winter). Journal of Law and Education, 17, 299-344. Richards v. Thurston, 304 F.Supp. 449 (D. Mass 1969), aff 'd 424 F.2d 1281 (1st Cir. 1970). Rose, M. (1996, October). Tougher discipline, safer schools. Education Digest, 62, 15-18. Rossow, L. F. (1995, Fall). Refining the 'expelled ' Fourth amendment and T.L.O. for realistic schools. Urban Lawyer, 27, 85-89. Sex and drugs and nutty schools. (1996, October 12). Economist, 31. Shoemaker, S. (1995, Spring). D. T. v. Independent School District: limiting liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Urban Lawyer, 393-412. Spivey v. Elliott, 29 F.3d 1526 (11th Cir. 1994). Stucky v. Bradford Area School District, 856 F.2d 594 (3d Cir. 1988). Tanner, D. (1972). Secondary education. New York: Macmillan. Tinker v. Des Moines School District. 393 U.S. 503 (1969). United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995). Walker, P.A. & Roder, L. (1993, Spring). Reflections on the practical and legal implications of school-board management and teacher employment. Journal of Law and Education, 22, 159-186.