With the rise of sites like myspace.com and facebook.com, administrators face new questions concerning their ability to discipline students using the new technology.

The struggle for administrators is one between free speech for students and the maintenance of a learning environment.

In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines School District “speech must substantially disrupt operations or infringe on rights of other students” to warrant discipline.

So does a student-designed webpage containing disparaging remarks about school administrators qualify as disrupting operations of a school?

The PSBA’s answer: No, at least not for now in the Western District of Pennsylvania because of a federal court decision in which a student at Hermitage School District created a mock online profile of an administrator on myspace.com using the administrator’s picture.

The profile was insulting to the administrator, but it was ruled the school had no grounds to discipline the student because he had created the profile off school grounds and the profile did not substantially disrupt school operations.

Other students had viewed the material, and teachers complained of having to redirect students in some classes, but the court ruled the disruption was not sufficient enough to warrant severe discipline such as expulsion.

“The discipline must justify the disruption,” Jennifer E. Gornall-Rouch, an education law expert presenting at the roundup told the audience.

Other legal issues discussed at the meeting included discussion of the infamous “Bong HiTs 4 Jesus” banner unfurled by an Alaskan student as the 2002 Winter Olympic torch passed by his school. The student was suspended for 10 days, and courts have decided a school has the authority to punish expression promoting illegal drug use.

Had the banner said “Legalize marijuana” it may have been protected as political expression.

Other legal issues discussed at the meeting included defining weapons to include pepper spray and soft pellet airguns, and the responsibility of the school in what is called state-created danger.

The example case given was one in which students had attended a school-sponsored overnight party. In the example offered, a student leaves the party when it is over and goes out for breakfast. The student falls asleep at the wheel two hours after the conclusion of the party and strikes another car head-on. Is the school responsible because it held the all night party? The answer is no, as long as the school did not hold the student against his or her will and opportunities to sleep or provide for alternative transportation had been available.

Also discussed was teacher/student relationships. The question asked whether or not a 17-year-old student, who admits to having a consensual relationship with a teacher can actually give consent.

The student cannot give consent because the teacher is in a custodial relationship and therefore at a different power level. Similar decisions have been reached concerning prison inmates having relationships with guards and other prison staff.

Another issue discussed at the roundup was whether or not a public school is required to provide occupational therapy services to a private school student who qualifies for the services pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Public schools must provide the services if the student is dually enrolled for purposes of receiving occupational therapy at the public school.

Knade’s slide presentation showed various pictures to preface the next question. One, a picture of a grizzled prospector with a gold pan was said by Knade to be “a plaintiff attorney panning for gold in a school district’ stream.”

Other issues discussed included Family Medical Leave Act notice procedures, and school construction delays.