EOL 469: Legal Basis of Educational Practice
David M. Stone, University Laboratory High School, Urbana, IL USA
EOL 469 Writing Assignment #1
Response Regarding School Liability and Policy
Dear John,
I am writing this letter in response to your stated concerns regarding our students being at risk of suicide, the school's potential for liability in suicide-related situations, and adequacy of current school policy.
As you are aware, two recent Illinois cases, Grant v. Board of Trustees of Valley View School District and Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse, should be considered in our assessment of current school status, liability and adequacy of school policy. I believe the court holdings (final decisions) need to be considered, though the dissenting justices in the cases make a number of statements that we also should also consider in our assessment.
Grant v. Board of Trustees of Valley View School District involved failure of a guidance counselor to report a student's suicide threats to the child's parents or implement a suicide prevention program. Both the lower and appellate courts stated that Illinois School Code does not mandate programs of this type and that failure to develop programs of this type does not give rise to cause of action against the district. Additionally, both courts affirmed that the school district and the counselor were entitled to immunity under in loco parentis, created by School Code. This status extends to teachers and other certified personnel unless wilful and wanton misconduct is proven. Finally, both courts agreed that the actions of the guidance counselor did not constitute wilfil and wanton misconduct.
Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse involved the dismissal of a physical education student who was being harassed by other students about a rape she had suffered, and her decision to testify against the perpetrator. The teacher, who may have been aware of the past rape as well as recent suicide attempts by seven other students within a three month period, sent the student to the locker room, whereupon the student attempted suicide. The child's parents sued the teacher, the board of education and others, claiming that the school's failure to act in a manner which protected their child, failure to take steps to prevent the student's suicide attempt and the act of reprimanding the student by sending her to the locker room were substantive due process violations. Both the lower and appellate courts stated that none of the areas of judicial controversy were substantive in term of due process violation.
The court decisions in these two cases may make it appear as though Illinois School Code exempts Illinois administrators, teachers and staff from needing to provide suicide prevention programs. Additionally, Illinois School Code provides immunity from prosecution under in loco parentis. Finally, we may feel secure in protection of our disciplinary actions based on the Hasenfus decision. The reality however is that we should probably not feel blanket protection is provided. The dissenting judge in the Grant case makes clear our responsibility in caring for students under our supervision, expanding "wilful and wanton misconduct" to include failure to exercise ordinary care to prevent danger based on prior knowledge. Additionally, the court involved in the Hasenfus appeal makes clear the fact that they were "loath to conclude now and forever that inaction by a school toward a pupil could never give rise to a due process violation."
In terms of legalities, policy regarding how to deal with students who are potentially suicidal centers around "due care". We are expected to act and develop policy in a manner which prevents harmful consequences, which can be reasonably anticipated, to students. Because we are dealing with suicide-related issues, our duty is to take the greatest precautions reasonably possible, based on both our professional training and our professional experiences. These responsibilities fall into the category of tort law, noncontractual responsibilities that persons owe to one another in society. Legally, our special relationship as teachers, counselors and administrators presupposes a greater deal of responsibility on our part than would be the case in dealing with other adults or in dealing with strangers. Our duty of due care is specified through a number of state statutes, which shape the way in which our public schools are organized and structured internally. We are expected to act as reasonable people who use reasonable care to avoid injuring others.
We can be held liable for breach of duty, both as individuals and as institutions. Determination of breach of duty includes analysis and balancing of 1) forseeability of deleterious consequences, 2) burden or inconvenience of actions to avoid specific dangers, 3) actions and policies aimed at reducing dangers, and 4) degree to which we have taken into account mental characteristics of students (considering the possibilities of poor judgment based on age/inexperience, mental states and prior conditions such as mental illness). Should a tragedy occur, I believe our liability will be based on our knowledge and compliance to established state statutes, as well as our establishment and efforts to comply to internal school policy, which goes beyond the minimal acceptable requirements set forth by Illinois School Code statutes. In my opinion, we should use statutes and legal cases as a starting point, and then establish our own specific policies aimed at preventing suicide-related situations. We can do this by first examining and documenting our current practices which serve as a foundation for our school suicide prevention and suicide issue communication programs, as well as develop specific suicide prevention policy.
We presently lack any formal policy regarding suicide prevention. There is no reference to student suicide and suicide prevention policy in the school handbook. Further, teachers have not been provided inservice training regarding this area of concern during any of the fifteen years I have taught at the school. Presently we have a number of successful ways in which teachers communicate concerns with other teachers and administrators. Quarterly grade level meetings in which all of the teachers at each grade level meet to discuss academic, social and behavioral concerns of members of each of the five classes (subfreshman through senior) are useful and they serve as an excellent starting point for communication. Confidential follow-up communication from Counseling Office staff and school administrators have proven useful in terms of documentation of concerns and follow-up, and serve as an outstanding way to keep teachers informed of efforts and progress toward resolving situations of concern We do need to develop specific policy which will be shared broadly with all members of the University Laboratory High School community, including teachers, administrators, students and parents. Rather than put extensive effort into developing a de novo policy, I would like to see us examine current university policy and programs relating to suicide prevention. We should also examine policies put forth by similar schools including laboratory high schools both in and outside Illinois, public selective admissions high schools such as the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, as well as a number of other public high schools throughout the state. A number of these policies are online (e.g. http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/ed-online/cter/EOL469/week7.html) , as are a number of pertinent resources such as Yellow Ribbon Suicide Prevention Program.
I believe the following to be key to the development of a suitable and meaningful suicide prevention program at University Laboratory High School:
First, I suggest that we develop a team of individuals to look into the above-mentioned policies. Ideally the committee should be comprised of the Assistant Director, a representative from the Counseling Office, one or two community mental health professionals who work with adolescent depression (Carle Pavilion staff member recommended) and one or two teachers. This group's activities would be of relatively short duration, with the main objective being the development of a school suicide prevention policy. Ideally we would be able to utilize the services of the community mental health professional for consultations when appropriate.
Second, the policy developed should be submitted to and approved by University Legal Services prior to widespread dissemination. It is essential that University Legal Services be provided appropriate public school statutes at the time the policy document is submitted.
I believe the following should be incorporated into the suicide prevention program, and that each be clearly stated in the policy document:
Thank you for the opportunity to give my input regarding the development of this type of policy. I look forward to speaking with you regarding your thoughts and reactions.
Sincerely,
David M. Stone
Teaching Associate