Is a charter school a public school? Does the Free Exercise Clause require taxpayers to fund charter schools that teach religion as truth? Is a charter school just a private organization with a state contract, or is it a state actor or even a governmental entity? Is Oklahoma on the brink of establishing the country’s first religious public school? Today, we’re tackling the oral arguments from another consequential Supreme Court case with some major implications for education. We usually only see these kinds of big ones every few years, but the Supreme Court is all-in on education these days. You’ve probably heard about this one, too, since it’s been all over the news (and all over Chalk & Gavel; we covered the OK Supreme Court's decision in this case in Episode 23). This one deals with a Catholic organization that was approved to operate a religious charter school by Oklahoma’s Charter School Review Board. Oklahoma's Attorney General, a republican named Gentner Drummond, believed that this violated the Establishment Clause and the state’s charter school law. This case went all the way to Oklahoma’s Supreme Court, which sided with Drummond, and that’s where most of us thought it would stay… but no, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to weigh in on the situation, and here we are. To help us break down those oral arguments, we’re honored to be joined by Dr. Martha McCarthy, a legend in education law who has been writing about religion and public schools since the 1980s! You don't want to miss this one!

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk & Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: Supreme Court, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, Oral Argument, Religion, Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, Charter Schools, Martha McCarthy

#educationlaw #k12 #podcast #ChalkandGavel #SCOTUS #religionineducation #schoolchoice

Does it burden a family’s religion to have their child exposed to views with which they disagree? Where is the line between exposure and coercion? Who gets to draw that line? Should public schools be a place where students encounter and acknowledge a variety of viewpoints, even if they don’t agree with them? Or should parents have the power to opt their kids out of anything that might conflict with their religious views? Can a diverse, inclusive curriculum co-exist with ever-increasing parental rights? Is opting out going to become a constitutional right? This all seems pretty straightforward, huh? Today, we're discussing the Supreme Court's oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Jamie was there in person to witness the arguments. (Apparently, Chalk & Gavel is press!) By now, you’ve probably heard of this one; we covered the Circuit Court’s opinion in Episode 12, and there has been a decent amount of news coverage. This is the case in which religious parents want to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ inclusive books in the elementary English curriculum. To help us make sense of all of this, we’re welcoming back Richard Katskee, an Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and the Director of the Appellate Litigation Clinic at Duke University, who is intimately familiar with arguing religious issues in education at the Supreme Court. You don't want to miss this one as we break down the oral argument and read the tea leaves to unpack how the Court may decide the case and what impacts it will have on K-12 education!

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk & Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: Supreme Court, Mahmoud v. Taylor, Oral Argument, LGBTQ Inclusive Curriculum, Religion, Parental Rights, Richard Katskee

#educationlaw #k12 #podcast #ChalkandGavel #SCOTUS #religionineducation #LGBTQ

   Sheet1Sheet2When can educators use materials created by someone else? What happens when a teacher creates a learning activity packet for her class that includes 11 pages copied straight from a copyrighted work? What do Chris and Jamie know about cake decorating? Turns out, not much (except what we've learned from The Great British Baking Show and Nailed It!). In this episode, we’re going back to the 70s and 80s for our first case about copyright and fair use in education. We're discussing Marcus v. Rowley, a case that involves a teacher who copied some material from a copyrighted book, Cake Decorating Made Easy, for use in her home economics class. Unfortunately for her, the author of the book found out and sued her for copyright infringement. We also discuss the Trump administration's recent Executive Order, entitled "Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities," which instructs the Secretary of Education to prepare to close the Department of Education.---Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠---Keywords: Copyright, Fair Use, Teaching and Educational Purposes, Cake Decorating, U.S. Department of Education, Trump Administration, Executive Order#educationlaw #k12 #podcast #ChalkandGavel #teachers #copyright #educationalfairuse #DOE

What happens when a student with a disability graduates high school with a 3.4 GPA but is unable to read? When does an Individualized Education Program provide a Free and Appropriate Education as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Are you ready for another round of special education acronym bingo? We were ready AF. This is the case of William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, a case involving whether or not a school failed to provide a free and appropriate public education to a student who graduated without the ability to read. We also discuss the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision that affirmed the Littlejohn v. Leon County case that we covered in Episode 36. That case involved a school creating a support plan for a transgender student without parental involvement. Finally, we reflect on some recent massive layoffs at the U.S. Department of Education.

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: Students with Disabilities, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Individualized Education Program (IEP), Reading Decoding, Fluency, and Comprehension, Transgender Students, Parental Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

#educationlaw #k12 #podcast #ChalkandGavel #teachers #studentswithdisabilties #IEP

When can schools punish students for the unauthorized use of AI? Is the use of AI sufficiently covered by schools’ existing academic integrity policies? Today, we’re covering a very recent case from November of 2024. Imagine a student using an AI chatbot to help them with their homework. It's almost inconceivable, right? Sure, of course. This is Harris v. Adams, a case involving a student who was punished for using AI to complete a History project. His parents fought back, saying that the punishment violated his rights, but did they have a case? In this episode, we break down this recent, timely case that tackles when the use of AI crosses the line into academic dishonesty. This is an issue that many school leaders are facing, so we figured it would be a good case to cover, especially because the student here makes pretty much every argument you could think of to try to get his punishment thrown out. This is what Chris likes to call a "spaghetti lawsuit." We also discuss a recent case out of the First Circuit that upheld a school district policy that allows students to determine whether or not their parents should be notified about their transgender status.

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Academic Integrity, Student Handbooks and School Policies, Student Misconduct, Preliminary Injunction, Due Process, Vagueness, LGBTQ Students, Parental Rights

#educationlaw #k12 #podcast #studentrights #schools #AIinSchools #academicintegrity

When are public high schools required to officially recognize student groups? Can a school stop students from forming a Gay-Straight Alliance? In today's episode, we’re covering a 2003 case that allows us to lay out lots of the characteristics and guidelines of the 1984 Equal Access Act. This case concerns a proposed Gay-Straight Alliance club that was denied the opportunity to operate like the other non-curricular clubs at the high school. While it seemed that many school officials in this case were well aware of their obligations under the Equal Access Act, pressure from the community led to school officials kicking the can down the road and making some problematic decisions. And guess what? It led to a lawsuit. Surprise! This is the Boyd County High School Gay Straight Alliance v. the Board of Education of Boyd County. We also discuss some updates on the Trump Administration and education, specifically an executive order on immigration enforcement in "sensitive locations," rumblings about curtailing the work of the Department of Education, and actions aimed at "ending racial discrimination in K-12 schooling."---Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠---Keywords: Equal Access Act, Gay-Straight Alliance, Student Clubs, Content and Viewpoint Discrimination, the Trump Administration, Immigration Enforcement, Department of Education, Racial Discrimination#educationlaw #k12 #podcast #studentrights #schools #equalaccess #firstamendment

What happens when a state fails to meet its constitutional obligation to provide all students with a sound basic education? If a court tells the state that it’s failing to appropriately fund public schools, how do we fix it within our system of checks and balances? In this episode, we’re joined by school finance expert and all-around super dude Eric Houck to help us make sense of the Leandro case, North Carolina’s decades-long school finance case. Eric is a Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He's also a past president of the National Education Finance Academy and has just published a book on school funding in the US, Indian Country, and US Territories, so it'll be nice to have an actual expert with us! You don't want to miss this one! The Leandro case is fascinating because it's the first case in which a state court ordered the state to direct a specific amount of money to fund its schools. We also discuss two cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this term. Listeners of Chalk & Gavel will know these well; they are the Oklahoma religious charter school case (Episode 23) and Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case about parental opt-outs from LGBTQ books (Episode 12).

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: School Funding, Right to a Sound Basic Education, Separation of Powers, North Carolina, State Constitution Education Clauses, Religion, Charter Schools, Parental Rights, LGBTQ Curriculum

When do a school district’s employment decisions violate Title VII’s prohibition against racial discrimination in employment? Where is the line between interpersonal conflict and impermissible retaliation? What happens when local politics run a muck in a school district? In this episode, we unpack a rather complex case with a ton of history to it. While this is primarily a case about a principal whose contract was not renewed and who claimed it was for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons, there’s a lot more to it. You may remember some news from about 15 years ago about a Mexican American Studies program that was banned in Tucson, Arizona. Well, years after that controversy, the contract of one of the educators who was involved in its creation was not renewed by a school board that had some members who were publicly opposed to the program. We head west to Arizona to talk about the case of Romero v Tucson Unified School District. We also discuss a recent New Jersey law that bans the banning of books. That's right; it's a book ban ban!

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear!⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: Employment, Title VII, Race or National Origin Discrimination, Retaliation, School Boards, Contract Non-renewals, Ethnic Studies, Book Bans, Curricular Wars

What does the Constitution say about how schools should navigate situations where a student and their parents disagree about the student’s gender identity? How can schools promote the interests of LGBTQ students while also respecting parental rights? This is a tricky subject, and it often puts schools in a sticky situation. Which is why we’re doing this podcast, right? To help educators un-stick themselves as much as possible. Today's case illustrates a constantly changing and hotly debated legal landscape: the balance of parental rights, the rights and interests of LGBTQ students, and the authority of schools to promote what they may think is "in the best interests of the student." Trying to balance these complex issues often puts schools between a rock and a hard place. Today, we’re diving into Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, a case involving a parental challenge to a support plan that the school created for their transgender child. We also discuss an update to a lawsuit challenging Iowa's recent curricular gag order.

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: LGBTQ Students' Rights, Parental Rights, Transgender Students, Support Plans, Fourteenth Amendment, Substantive Due Process, Qualified Immunity, Curriculum, First Amendment

Do students have First Amendment rights to avoid potentially controversial school assignments and activities? When does a school assignment cross the line between legitimate educational activity and being inappropriate? Today’s case is about a Las Vegas high school drama teacher who “rolled the dice” and asked students to write a monologue and have it performed in front of the class. But here's the twist, the teacher asked students to randomly pick another student’s monologue to perform, and as it turned out, one of those monologues was sexually explicit. Feeling compelled to complete the required activity, one student read that monologue, and things “flopped” from there. This is the 2024 case of Evans v Hawes. At the heart of this case is the question of whether or not students have a First Amendment right to avoid classroom activities based on their disagreement with the content. It's a fascinating case with a significant legal question. It sounds perfect for a Chalk & Gavel episode! We also discuss another recent selective admissions case out of Boston that is challenging a school's pursuit of diversity in its admissions process.

---

Need some education law content for your courses or professional development? We have a Teaching Guide! You can check it out at our website, ⁠ChalkandGavel.com⁠.

We'd also greatly appreciate it if you would consider supporting Chalk and Gavel by becoming a subscriber on Patreon. Your support will help us continue to deliver the education law content you want to hear! ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/chalkandgavel⁠

---

Keywords: First Amendment, Free Speech, Compelled Speech, School Assignments, Assault and Battery, Drama, Parents, School Board Meetings, Limited Public Forum, Selective Admissions, Diversity, Race Discrimination