High School Class Challenges New Attendance Policy

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Cambell v. Board of Education, a class of high school students brought action against a local school board for imposing academic sanctions for nonattendance. The students requested injunctive relief from the New Milford board of education, as well as a declaratory judgment by the court. A declaratory judgment is a determination by the court that resolves a legal uncertainty between the parties. In law, an injunction is a court order that keeps a person or organization from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the rights of another. An injunction can also be used to compel a party to carry out a specific action. In the case at hand, the high student class requests an injunction in hopes that the court could prevent the school board and from implementing their new attendance policy.

The new attendance policy would withhold credit from any student who was absent from any year-long class for more than twenty-four (24) class periods. Absences due to school-sponsored activities, essential administrative business, or excused by administrative waiver did not count towards this maximum. In addition to the twenty-four absence limit, the course grade of any student whose absence from school is unapproved is subject to a five-point reduction for each unapproved absence after the first. In any one marking period, the grade may not, however, be reduced to a grade lower than 50, which is a failing grade. The grade reduction for unexcused absences is, like the twenty-four maximum absence policy, subject to administrative waiver. The policy of the school board entails extensive opportunities for counseling after a student's first confirmed unapproved absence from a class and thereafter. The school board argued that the attendance policy’s purpose is educational rather than disciplinary. In this respect, a disciplinary suspension would not be calculated as part of the twenty-four maximum absences. The high school class, on the other hand, argued that the policy was inherently unfair and violated the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It provides that no state or government shall deny to any person the “equal protection of the laws.” Specifically, it applies various tiers of scrutiny to policies, laws, and actions that allegedly violate the rights of a group or persons.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school board. The school board's decision to adopt uniform school-wide rules for academic sanctions for non-attendance was not beyond the school’s legal power or authority. There was insufficient evidence to show that the policy operated in a manner that conflicted with state statutes governing compulsory school attendance or student discipline. The policy did not jeopardize any fundamental rights under the state constitution. The class failed to meet its burden of proof that the challenged policy had no reasonable relationship to any legitimate state purpose. “[The school board reminds] us that a district wide policy is more likely to assure equality of treatment for all students than is a policy administered on an ad-hoc basis by individual classroom teachers” said the court.  “We find the [school board’s] arguments persuasive and therefore reject the high school class’ equal protection claim.”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Campbell v. Board of Education, 193 Conn. 93, 475 A.2d 289, 1984 Conn. LEXIS 567 (Conn. 1984)