When are schools legally responsible for student injuries during athletic activities? Where is the line between a creative drill and an unnecessary risk? Was the school out of bounds? It’s no slam dunk, but these cases might have you crying foul! Today's episode is a double-header! We’re heading down to the athletic department to talk about two cases where sports practices resulted in students getting injured. From a basketball drill gone wrong to an errant baseball throw, what happens when a school allegedly “drops the ball” with school safety? These are the cases of Secky v. New Paltz Central School District and Grady v. Chenango Valley Central School District. Game on! We also discuss a recent injunction that prevents Louisianna from implementing their new law that would have required all classrooms in the state to post the Ten Commandments.

What does the law say about the appropriate placement for students with disabilities? What happens when parents and schools disagree about a student’s IEP? Who's ready for more special education acronyms? We are because today we’re talking about when, under the IDEA, a PPT’s IEP, considering a student’s FBA and ATE, provides FAPE in the LRE. That’s right, we’re going to cover the interesting case of a young student with disabilities whose parents were not too pleased with his school’s determination of how much inclusion in the general education classroom was appropriate. This case wrestles with the messy intersection of parent, school, and student rights, namely how much say schools should have in determining the placement of students with disabilities. How much say should parents have? And how involved should the courts get? Who gets to decide? This is P. ex rel Mr. and Mrs. P. v Newington Board of Education, a case about the Least Restrictive Environment provision in the IDEA. We also discuss some recent Supreme Court updates, including two education related cases the court will not be hearing this term.

Can schools censor student speech that promotes illegal drug use? What authority do schools have to regulate student speech that contradicts the educational goals of the school? How do you celebrate your one-year anniversaries? In honor of Chalk and Gavel’s 1st anniversary, we’re going back about 20 years to cover a classic! This is a landmark Supreme Court case, Morse v Frederick… or as most of us call it, the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case! Stick around as we head up to Juneau, Alaska, as the 2002 Olympic torch heads through the town and high school students are allowed to go check it out as it passes. As it passed, and the TV news cameras rolled, high school senior Joseph Frederick and his friends held up a 14-foot banner that said, you guessed it, "Bong Hits for Jesus." We also discuss a new entry into the ongoing legal debate about increasing diversity at elite magnet schools.

Can a school deny academic credit as part of school discipline for work that has already been completed? How far does a school’s authority go? At what point during the semester should you play it safe and leave your marijuana at home? In this episode, we go back to South Gibson High School in Indiana in 1998, where a zero-tolerance drug policy set off a chain of events that sparked a pretty interesting legal battle with some fascinating implications. We have a student who got caught with marijuana crumbs in his truck and was expelled in the last few days of the fall semester of his junior year. As part of the expulsion, the school denied the student academic credit for the entire fall semester, even though he only had 3 days left when he was expelled and otherwise would have passed some of his courses. This is the case of South Gibson School Board v. Sollman. We also discuss a recent report about potential racial bias in AI detectors.

What happens when a teacher’s religious beliefs clash with a district's policy to support transgender students?

When can a school discipline a teacher for their social media use? What happens when a teacher’s problematic tweets go viral? Imagine waking up to an email detailing a teacher’s history of retweeting and commenting on some rather controversial posts. That's exactly what happened to a West Virginia school board’s communications director when one of the district’s high school teacher's Twitter activity sparked a firestorm in the community. In this episode, we're diving into the case of Durstein v. Alexander, a legal battle that challenges the boundaries of free speech for educators and explores what happens when personal beliefs collide with professional responsibilities. We also discuss a recent wave of cell phone bans in K-12 schools.

Welcome to our 25th episode! To celebrate, we invited Supreme Court and education law reporter Mark Walsh back to discuss the Supreme Court's 2023-24 Term and look forward to next year's docket. We discuss the Court's cases from this past year that could impact education, including O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (which dealt with public employees blocking individuals from their social media accounts); Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (a case dealing with the question of when employee transfers trigger the nondiscrimination protections of Title VII); Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (a case that we've covered before about the authority of federal agencies); and Snyder v. United States (which is a case about the proper scope of federal anti-bribery laws). We also look at the cases the Court decided not to address this term, like cases about alleged racial discrimination in school admissions and bathroom access for transgender individuals. Finally, we look forward to next term. The Court has already taken an important case about the constitutionality and lawfulness of bans on gender-affirming care that could profoundly impact how those topics are addressed in schools. In addition, we're watching a few other petitions for cases the Court may take up, particularly about public funding for religious schools and religious charter schools (check out Episode 23 to hear more). In our bellringer, we discuss ongoing litigation around the new Title IX regulations, including several injunctions that prevent the new regulations from taking effect in certain states and districts. This is one episode you don't want to miss!

What’s the difference between creative discipline and excessive punishment? How does a five-minute punishment set off six years of litigation? What does the law say about fastening students to trees? It's definitely frowned upon! But that’s exactly what happened in today’s case, Doe v. the Hawaii Department of Education. This is the story of how a vice principal got into a sticky situation by taping a student’s head to a tree. We got pretty attached to this case. We will not be masking any facts here. It turns out that this vice principal’s bark was just as bad as his bite. We're all rooting for the student in this case. We also discuss a recent settlement agreement between a Tennessee school and the Satanic Temple, stemming from a First Amendment challenge related to the Satanic Temple's request to start an After School Satan Club at the school.

Can a state authorize a religious virtual charter school? Where is the line between the religious liberties of individuals and prohibitions on the government establishing a religion? Oh, what a beautiful morning! Oh, what a beautiful day. I've got a beautiful feeling everything's Oklahoma today! In this episode, we’re talking about a recent case that made waves in Oklahoma. An application was submitted for a virtual charter school. But not just any virtual charter school. This was going to be a Catholic school. That's right, a Catholic virtual public charter school. This is the case of an attempt to create the first religious public school in the United States. Get your legal pads ready; this is Drummond v. the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board. We also discuss a related situation in Oklahoma where the State Superintendent published a memo stating that all Oklahoma schools are required to incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments, as an instructional support into the curriculum.

How and when should schools distinguish between teenage banter and offensive language? How does extensive media attention impact the handling of sensitive incidents in schools? In this episode, we tackle a case that you might have heard about. The story went viral and sent shockwaves through a Kansas City community. This is the case of Plaintiff A v Park Hill School District. You might know it as the incident where some students started a Change.org petition to reinstate slavery. The students were ultimately disciplined, and they challenged their discipline as violating their free speech, due process, and equal protection rights. We also discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which has the potential to fundamentally alter the balance of power between executive agencies, the legislature, and courts.