NC Supreme Court rules that schools cannot
constitutionally deny alternative education to suspended students
unless they articulate a significant or important reason for the
denial.
October 15, 2010 Media Release
(Raleigh, NC) – On October 8, 2010, the North Carolina Supreme
Court reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals decision that had
allowed a school system to deny alternative education to suspended
students. The NC Supreme Court ruling acknowledged that
students suspended from school retain their constitutional right to
an education, and that it cannot be taken away without a significant
and important justification.
In the King v Beaufort County Board of
Education case, the NC Supreme Court held that while the
adoption of a strict scrutiny standard for disciplinary and
alternative education decisions was impractical, the extremely
lenient standard used in the past – which gave school administrators
wide latitude to deny alternative education – is no longer adequate
to protect student rights. The decision stated that “alternative
education decisions for students who receive long-term suspensions
are [to be] reviewed under the State Constitution’s standard of
intermediate scrutiny.”
"This definitely is a victory for the students," said
Erwin Byrd,
staff attorney with Legal Aid of North Carolina’s
Advocates for Children (ACS) unit, one of the law groups
representing the teens. "What it's going to mean on the ground
is that all administrators, even if a suspension is legal, have to
look at alternatives when a student is suspended. That's a
huge step forward for North Carolina."
In 2008, the student plaintiff in the King
v Beaufort County Board of Education case was suspended
for the last five months of her sophomore year at Beaufort County
high school. Viktoria King and Jessica Hardy were punished
after they briefly fought each other outside the school just after
it had let out early for a holiday weekend. Though the
altercation between the girls lasted less than five seconds and
involved no serious injuries or weapons, and though school rules
allowed administrators to choose from a broad range of punishments
for fighting (including no suspension at all), these students were
suspended for the remainder of the school year. In addition,
neither student was offered a spot at the district’s alternative
school, designed in part to serve suspended students.
In North Carolina and throughout the country,
school officials have traditionally had wide latitude to impose
discipline. In the King v
Beaufort County Board of Education case, the school
district refused to explain why it took this extra step, usually
applied only to students deemed particularly dangerous or
disruptive. The girl's attorneys argued that the
school district needed to justify the extra punishment, which they
called unreasonable and unnecessarily harmful to the girls.
The case has drawn national attention from civil rights
groups, children’s advocates and school leaders, and is likely to be
cited as a precedent as other states confront similar issues.
The ruling affects one aspect of the zero-tolerance
discipline policies that spread throughout the country over the last
two decades, a policy originally intended to weed out dangerous
children but one that critics say is used too readily for lesser
infractions, derailing the lives of black children in particular.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs-appellants (King and her parent) were
Legal Aid of North Carolina’s
Erwin Byrd and
Lewis Pitts and
Jane Wettach of the
Duke University Law School’s Children’s Law Clinic.
Forty-three state and national organizations [list attached]
supported the case as
amici.
"Our ACS team won a major ruling in the NC Supreme Court, shoring up
the state constitutional right to a sound, basic education,” noted
George Hausen, LANC’s executive director. "The ruling doesn’t
establish a right to alternative education, but it does require
schools to articulate a reason for not providing such education when
they impose a long-term suspension. Congratulations to Erwin
Byrd, Lewis Pitts, Jane Wettach and all the other participants for
their excellent work."
Legal Aid of
North Carolina
(LANC) is a statewide, nonprofit law firm that provides
free legal services in civil matters to eligible, low-income people
in all 100 counties in North Carolina through 24 geographically
located offices in North Carolina.
Advocates for Children’s Services (ACS) is a statewide project
of Legal Aid of North Carolina that provides free legal
representation to at-risk children and children involved in the
juvenile justice system because they have been denied Medicaid,
Special Education, speedy permanent placement and/or the opportunity
for a sound basic education. For additional information, visit
LANC's website, www.legalaidnc.org.
#
# #
ATTACHMENTS:
-
“Amici curiae, or ‘friends of the Court’” (list)
-
NC Supreme Court Decision, King v. Beaufort County Board of
Education,
October 8, 2010
ALSO SEE MEDIA ARTICLES:
-
"Ruling Limits State’s Power in School Suspensions,”
New York Times,
October 8, 2010.
-
"Supreme Court sides with expelled teen,” News &
Observer,
October 9, 2010
______
CONTACTS:
Erwin Byrd (Staff Attorney, LANC Advocates for Children’s
Services), Durham, NC, 919-226-0052
Lewis Pitts (Managing Attorney, LANC Advocates for Children’s
Services), Durham, NC, 919-226-0052
George Hausen (Executive Director, Legal Aid of NC), Raleigh, NC
919-856-2564
Dock Kornegay (Director, Public Relations & Development, Legal Aid
of NC), Raleigh,
NC, 919-856-2564
Disclaimer
The materials contained on this website are for information and
educational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
Also please note that Legal Aid of North Carolina does not provide
legal assistance by E-mail. Contact your Legal Aid of North Carolina
office or a private attorney if you need to speak to an attorney
regarding your particular situation.
See our complete disclaimer.
Mission Statement
Legal Aid of North Carolina is a statewide, nonprofit law firm
that provides free legal services in civil matters to low-income
people in order to ensure equal access to justice and to remove
legal barriers to economic opportunity.