Archive for the ‘Youth rights’ Category:
Senior Staff Attorney
The Austin Independent School District is moving forward on a plan dividing two low-performing middle schools into separate academies for boys and for girls.
While there are plenty of fine single-sex schools, research suggests they thrive because of parental choice and first-rate teaching. AISD’s plan for Pearce and Garcia middle schools promises neither.
In fact, when the district polled neighborhood parents, less than half backed dividing the students by gender. Even fewer parents were willing to send their kids to single-sex schools.
With good reason: there’s no evidence that allowing boys and girls to learn together played any role in these schools’ poor performance.
So what’s behind segregating boys and girls – and only in one, low-income community? We’re concerned that this plan is driven by outdated stereotypes and debunked claims about boys’ and girls’ brains. We also ask if a more affluent community would have been singled out for this scheme. That’s why ACLU Texas has filed a Public Information request to learn more about this plan. We need science, not stereotype, to fix our public schools.
Legal and Policy Director
Does Texas really need more pregnant teens? Two shameful new bills are engineered to guarantee that.
HB 1057 by State Representative Jeff Leach and SB 521 by State Sen Ken Paxton both heap budget-breaking burdens on public schools that are trying to give students quality sex education. Under these laws, schools would need written parent consent to offer sexual health education from any provider who is not a district employee.
Even worse: the bills outright forbid health professionals to teach sex ed if the educators have any link to health providers that include abortion services. That means that hundreds of districts that lack their own resources to provide their own sex ed would have to give up or whittle their programs.
And this is in the state with the fourth-highest rate of children giving birth to children.
How can Leach and Paxton justify this?
Easy: their bills exist only to bar Planned Parenthood from teaching students about sex and health. Attacking this effective, established provider of health care is priority #1 for these lawmakers. It’s more important to Leach and Paxton than preventing abortions, protecting young girls, and allowing our communities to decide for themselves how they want to inform children about health and sex.
Paxton and Leach are professional politicians. Planned Parenthood and public schools are professional educators. Leave our student’s health in the hands of those who care most.
The Dallas News today has coverage (“Texas civil liberties advocates seek limits on law enforcement tracking cell phones,” Jan. 10) of Grits’ efforts to seek legislation requiring a warrant for police to access cell-phone location data, a topic with which regular readers will be familiar. The article opens:
Smartphones and certain apps can help you find where your kid is hanging out, check on the whereabouts of an absent co-worker or spy on your spouse.
But the satellite navigation that allows for such tasks also helps police track a phone user’s exact location, and Texas civil liberties advocates say that kind of surveillance without court approval goes too far.
They want to update state law to require a court-ordered warrant for cellphone GPS tracking by law officers, with some exceptions. Police can currently track someone’s whereabouts by requesting cellphone company records, said Scott Henson, whose Austin-based gritsforbreakfast.org is influential among criminal-justice policy watchers.
“The law has not kept up with the technology,” said Henson, who is circulating proposed legislation to modernize the state Code of Criminal Procedure. No lawmaker has agreed to sponsor the measure yet, he said, but “folks really seem to intuitively understand that it’s a big deal.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and EFF-Austin, a “cyber liberties” organization, are also working on the effort, part of a national movement toward tightening up privacy for mobile device users.
Texas law officers currently have to get a court warrant for a wiretap, Henson said, and a court order is required before police can attach an electronic tracking device to someone’s vehicle. But he said the rise of smartphones equipped with GPS navigation means police can simply subpoena tracking records from cellphone companies, which received 1.3 million such requests in 2011.
Working with EFF-Austin, the ACLU (both state and national) and volunteers from among Grits readers, my wife and I put together a draft version of legislation we’d like to see filed and this week began making the rounds to seek out potential sponsors. Nobody has bitten yet, but I’ve been gratified at the reception in the Lege offices we’ve visited so far and suspect we’ll soon find someone to carry it.
The Dallas News story quoted a police union rep who seemed surprisingly sanguine, if grouchy, about the bill’s prospects:
While police respect privacy rights, law enforcement uses technology to combat crime, just as criminals use it for their purposes, said Charley Wilkison, public affairs director for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas.
“It’s a balance between the freedom of the individual … and the right of law enforcement to try to get at the bad actors,” he said.
Wilkison said accusations that GPS data is used broadly by police to spy on regular citizens are “a damn lie.” But he acknowledged that civil liberties advocates have a receptive audience among many lawmakers because of the “strong libertine, independent streak” in Texas.
To be clear, nobody said that “GPS data is used broadly by police to spy on regular citizens,” so that’s a red herring (Charley’s a master at concocting them). But it’s also true that, because requests by police for GPS data are sealed forever, nobody can know for sure what they’re doing with the information. Similarly, nobody is saying that law enforcement shouldn’t access GPS tracking data to fight crime, only that the tactic in most cases should require judicial oversight and, eventually, the public should get to know how those methods are being used.
That said, there is some evidence that requests for cell-phone location data are being used quite broadly by the feds, including in thousands of cases where charges are never filed, but nobody knows how frequently Texas agencies use the tactic. Federal Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith in Houston has pointed out that, when “Asked to furnish … cases brought against individuals who had been subject to warrantless cell phone tracking since 2001, the Department of Justice identified…about 38 cases a year. Given that the federal government obtains tens of thousands of these orders every year, this data suggests that the government is spending more time chasing the innocent than the black sheep and ne’er do wells.”
My guess would be that how and how often Texas law enforcement agencies access GPS tracking data varies widely. Some may misuse the privilege, while others may be more circumspect. If this bill passes, we’ll get to find out. However, we know for certain that any possible abuses can never be uncovered under the current system, where not just the public but even Texas judges can be kept in the dark when law enforcement accesses those records, which require only a subpoena to obtain.
Unreported in the Dallas News story, but importantly, the version of the bill we’re shopping includes exceptions to the warrant requirement during immediate, life-threatening emergencies and when the owner of an electronic device has reported it stolen. Also, to clarify, the bill includes not just smart phones but also regular cell phones (which are used by 88% of American adults) and other personal electronic devices that generate location data.
See a fact sheet regarding the proposed legislation that we’re distributing as we look for bill sponsors. If you’re a lege staffer and think your boss might be interested in carrying this bill, or if you live in Austin and are interested in volunteering for the effort, please shoot me an email.
By Gislaine Williams, ACLU of Texas Outreach Coordinator
We are fast approaching the start of the 2013 Texas legislative session. Starting January 8 through the end of May, Texas lawmakers will meet in Austin for the 83rd Legislature. They will be proposing, debating, and passing laws that will impact all of us.
As Texans, we have the right and responsibility to be a part of this political process. You can make a difference by raising your voice to demand policies that will make a positive change in our communities. Learn how to become a grassroots activist at Community Watchdog TX.
The first step is to educate yourself. Become familiar with the major issues in Texas. Learn about the legislative process and get to know your representatives. Our toolkits provide you an overview of the critical issues facing our state:
- Criminal Justice TX: Learn about mass incarceration, the rise of for-profit prisons, and the death penalty.
- Educate, Don’t Incarcerate: An overview of school discipline policies pushing students out of school.
- Religious Freedom: A look at how our religious freedoms are threatened in Texas.
- Immigrants’ Rights: Find out how we’re working to reclaim the civil rights of all Texans, regardless of immigration status.
- Find out who your representatives are here.
- Learn how a bill becomes a law here.
Contact your legislator. There are a number of ways you can contact your representative about an issue. You can write a letter, telephone, or set-up a meeting in the local district office. Use our lobbying guides to learn how.
Ready to meet with your legislator? We can help you schedule and prepare for your local meeting. Just email email@example.com to get started.
Lobby with us in Austin! The ACLU of Texas will host our first ever Symposium & Lobby Day in Austin Feb. 10-11. On Feb. 10, you will hear from advocates and policy experts working on criminal justice and immigrants’ rights issues. The following day we will go to the state capitol to meet with representatives to talk to them about the major civil liberties issues in our state. Sign-up today to receive more information.
Stay involved. Join the Community Action Network to get updates on ways you can advocate for change this legislative session.
By Matt Simpson
ACLU of Texas Policy Strategist
Rep. Kolkhorst of District 13 (Brenham) filed two bills that, if passed, would bolster protections for individual privacy rights of students in Texas schools. HB 101 mandates that Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) student attendance tracking programs be voluntary and only implemented if approved by the school district board of trustees. The approval process would include an opportunity for students, parents and the public to offer comments. HB 102 cuts to the heart of the matter and bars school districts from requiring students to participate in an RFID badge program.
The ACLU of Texas opposes use of RFID technology to track studemts because the technology is not secure. This technology, originally used to track livestock, simply isn’t appropriate for use with children.
RFID is a generic term that is used to describe a system that transmits the identity (in the form of a unique serial number) of an object or person wirelessly, using radio waves. In schools, students wear RFID equipped ID cards that show their whereabouts at all times. On campus, RFID raises privacy concerns about the ability of school personnel to track students, even in restrooms. Off campus, RFID exposes students to stalking because the devices are easily hacked using simple, inexpensive devices called “readers” that cost as little as $8 on Ebay.
RFID technology to take attendance in schools made statewide news in October 2012 when John Jay High School north of San Antonio began tracking student attendance via RFID-equipped school ID cards. Prior to this, only a very small number of schools in the Houston area used this technology but the use of RFID to track students has raised serious concerns for some time.
The ACLU has monitored the expanded use of RFID technology with students. We have opposed such efforts because we don’t want to see this kind of intrusive surveillance infrastructure gain inroads into our culture, and because it is against American values of privacy and freedom to teach children to accept intrusive surveillance technology.
Rep. Kolkhorst’s proposals leave flexibility with local schools but the decision about tracking individuals rightly remains with students and their parents. This is a balance that should transcend politics and remind us that parental authority is only temporarily (and never fully) handed over to schools. Parents and students who share our concerns about the kind of intrusive, surveillance climate student tracking programs create should be able to opt out.
In truth, the ACLU of Texas encourages all school districts to avoid RFID controversy by ignoring the claims of savings used as selling points by RFID manufacturers and avoiding the purchase of expensive RFID tracking programs. RFID was designed to track commercial products and livestock, not humans. Students don’t need to be treated like parolees under house arrest with an ankle monitor. Finding creative, locally grown solutions to support education, promote school attendance and education funding is critical. But, RFID student tracking comes at too high a price.
By Terri Burke
A few days ago we posted our response on Facebook to a proposed law that would require drug testing of applicants for Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF), which was endorsed by Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewherst. Our post drew a number of very spirited replies from supporters and non-supporters. To those who commented, thank you all for writing. Let me respond to some of your comments to emphasize a few points:
Halyi, There is no evidence welfare recipients use drugs at a higher rate than the rest of the population. When Florida tried this, over the 4 month period before the courts shut them down, the state lost $45,000 and discovered only 2.6 percent of the folks tested positive for drugs.
Jonathan, this drug test will only identify drug “use” not abuse. However much some of us may deplore any drug use, there is a difference between use and abuse. Moreover, the constitutional questions raised by mandatory government testing are far more problematic than testing by a private employer. This represents serious government overreach.
Robert, children of the occasional marijuana smoker are surely better off with that parent than being thrown into the Child Protective Services system (I don’t know where you live but search www.chron.com for some very scary stories about that if you haven’t seen them).
Johnathan, the average TANF monthly check is about $200, according to Gov. Perry. I don’t know much about drugs, but I doubt that buys very many.
Keilah, if you buy the argument that the taxpayers have a right to demand that those who receive taxpayer dollars be drug tested, then why aren’t we demanding drug testing of all the veterans, the senior citizens who receive Medicare and Social Security, farmers who get government subsidies, entrepreneurs who receive Texas Enterprise Funds from the governor’s office, and so on. My point is quite simple: we are making poverty a crime. We are going to drug test a group of people who differ from these others only because they may be poorer, they may be black, they may be brown – not because they are drug users.
I’m sorry we disagree on this but I hope you will continue to comment on our Facebook posts, receive our emails, and continue to challenge us when you think we should be. It is only through these dialogues that we get a better sense of the thinking of all Texans.
By Matthew Simpson
Parents and community members will have an opportunity to advocate for students at the Texas Legislature later this month. On Oct. 30, 2012, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hear testimony on a variety of issues facing students in our public schools. These are the topics the committee will address:
Alternative Education Programs
The committee will look at Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs) and Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs). Students are placed in DAEPs and JJAEPs when they are removed from the classroom. DAEPs are a part of school districts whereas JJAEPs are run by county juvenile justice boards. Advocates have expressed concerns about the quality of the education provided in DAEPs and JJAEPs. There are also alternative approaches to discipline that allow students to remain in a normal classroom setting that can actually produce better outcomes.
Racial Inequity in School Discipline
Second, the committee will review research that highlights racial inequity in suspension, expulsion, and tickets at school. Organizations like Texas Appleseed and the Council of State Governments Justice Center have found African-American and Latino students are more likely to be ticketed at school, expelled, and suspended. Special education students are also disproportionately represented in statewide studies. These trends raise troubling concerns about the way students are disciplined across Texas.
Zero Tolerance, Alternative Schools, and Student Ticketing
Third, the committee will consider how zero tolerance policies, separate alternative education campuses, and law enforcement in schools have become problematic in Texas. Zero tolerance policies require harsh disciplinary responses like suspension and expulsion when certain rules or laws are broken. The policies are widely considered a failure because they tie the hands of administrators. Even conservative groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation are voicing concerns about this approach to school discipline. Another critical issue is the overzealous use of ticketing by law enforcement in school. Over 275,000 tickets are issued to students in schools EACH YEAR in Texas. Expulsion, ticketing, and suspension undermine school success and ultimately undermine the chances of any individual student graduating. It is essential that we address our high dropout rates as we move toward an ever more sophisticated workforce and economy. We can start improving student success by making basic reforms to suspension and ticketing policies.
Children in the Foster Care System
Fourth, the committee will look at how foster children fair in school and in the juvenile justice system. The committee will likely look at ways to improve case management and information sharing so that youth receive appropriate services.
Alternative Discipline Models
Finally, the committee will look at “[e]vidence-based models used for addressing juvenile delinquency prevention that are targeted to non-adjudicated, but at-risk youth, in the school disciplinary system.” Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) is one school discipline model that helps keep students in school and out of the juvenile justice system.. PBIS is a good alternative because it allows a school-wide approach to school discipline that focuses on prevention rather than simply relying on punishment. Graduated Sanctions is another alternative model. This approach creates disciplinary consequences of growing seriousness with each infraction. Tickets or suspensions are used as last resort measures.
The good news is that state legislators want to improve how we handle discipline at school and are ready to listen to suggestions. We, as parents, students, and Texas residents, have the opportunity to weigh in at this hearing and in the future as these issues continue to be discussed.
Want to get involved? Here’s how you can take action:
- Learn more about school discipline.
- Write your representative.
- Meet with your local legislator: Sign up for the Community Action Network and email firstname.lastname@example.org
By Dotty Griffith
Public Education Director
This week we released a report documenting that school districts all over the state routinely ignore the Constitution when it comes to religious freedom in public schools. Examples are detailed in, “At the Mercy of the Majority: Attacks on Religious Freedom in Texas Public Schools in the Decade after Santa Fe v. Doe.” Moreover, Texans who complain publicly are often subjected to ridicule and threats.
Check out our coverage:
According to the report, “The ACLU of Texas receives dozens of complaints every year from students, parents, and teachers across Texas reporting that local public schools violate students’ religious freedom in a myriad of ways: prohibiting students from wearing religious attire, injecting sectarian religious views into classroom instruction, and even endorsing and requiring student prayer.
“Yet most of the complainants are afraid of speaking out, even with the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court on their side. They fear if they go public with their concerns, their children will face retaliation at school. They fear social stigma in their towns. They fear loss of their jobs. They fear violence,” the report concluded.
Schools named in the report include:
Alief ISD p. 22
Athens ISD p. 46
Brazosport ISD p. 32
Brownsville ISD p. 21
Celina ISD p. 26, 32
Cleburne ISD p. 32, 42
Clint ISD p. 20
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD p. 30, 32
Dallas ISD p. 21, 44
Dayton ISD p. 28, 32
Deer Park ISD p. 28
Ector County ISD p. 32, 35
El Paso ISD p. 25
Grand Prairie ISD p. 25
Fort Bend ISD p. 22
Fredericksburg ISD p. 32, 42
Honda ISD p. 26
Humble ISD p. 26, 28
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD p. 45
Irving ISD p. 32, 44
Joshua ISD p. 32
King HS, Corpus Christi ISD p. 29
Liberty-Eylau ISD p. 41
Lubbock ISD p. 35
Lufkin ISD p. 32, 43
Magnolia ISD p. 25, 27, 32
Nacogdoches ISD p. 32, 40
Navasota ISD p. 41-42
North Lamar ISD p. 46
Panhandle ISD p. 28, 32
Rockwall ISD p. 41
Round Rock ISD p. 31
Socorro ISD p. 25, 47
Somerset ISD p. 20
Spring ISD p. 20
Texas City ISD p. 22
Willis ISD p. 32, 35
Wylie ISD p. 32
Ysleta ISD p. 45
Tags: religious freedom
By Sarah Guidry
Interim Executive Director
Earl Carl Institute for Legal & Social Policy
Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University
I recently found out that back in the late 1800s, my paternal great grandfather purchased land and built a school for the education of his children and grandchildren. I recall hearing my father talk about how his grandfather had volumes of Shakespeare on his book shelves that contributed to my father’s yearning to learn. As a child, not a single day passed without my parents and grandparents “preaching” the importance of education. As parents and grandparents of African American children, they knew, as I do, that education is a way to a better life. Education improves key aspects of life including financial, social, familial, and spiritual. Education is power!
My forbearers would never have envisioned today’s educational system that routinely criminalizes our children and closes the doors of opportunity. Students are pushed towards lifelong involvement in the criminal justice system when they are ticketed for relatively minor disciplinary issues. This phenomenon is now widely referred to as the school-to-prison pipeline.
The Earl Carl Institute for Legal & Social Policy, Inc. (ECI), is a research, writing, and advocacy think tank, affiliated with the Thurgood Marshall School of Law on the campus of Texas Southern University, a historically black university. The institute is one of the few organizations providing legal representation to students in school ticketing cases.
We frequently represent children in cases we consider particularly egregious; which brings to mind the story of a student we’ll call Mick. Mick retained the ECI Juvenile Justice Project to represent him in a school ticket case. Mick has ADHD and Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, which most often manifests through difficulty with social interaction, and repetitive and restricted patterns of behavior. Mick has an issue with elopement. That’s when a student leaves a permissible area of containment and enters onto another part of the school grounds unsupervised or without permission.
Mick was issued a ticket for trespassing on school grounds after he eloped from his Behavior Support classroom. Mick’s Individual Education Program specifically requires that his emergency contact (in this case, his mother) be notified immediately if Mick elopes, before involving the police. Multiple school personnel followed Mick around the campus for two hours; never once notifying his mother. One of the principals finally suspended Mick to have an excuse to call police. School policy holds that the only lawful place a suspended student may physically “wait” is in the front office. If the student leaves that area or refuses to go to the office, the school may call the police to arrest the student for “trespass.” Only after six squad cars arrived on scene, and Mick was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a squad car, was Mick’s mother notified of the situation. This was Mick’s third ticket for behavior related to his disability.
ECI was ultimately able to get Mick’s case dismissed. Mick potentially could have had three criminal misdemeanor convictions against him, all by the age of 12, possibly affecting his dream of going to college to earn a degree in computer science and becoming a gaming designer.
Other cases have included a student:
* With anxiety disorder ticketed for disruption of class for singing the ABC song which calms him;
* Overheard saying a curse word in the hallway that was ticketed for disruption of class/profanity;
* With Asperger’s Syndrome who was ticketed for assault when he brushed past a substitute teacher to leave the classroom and walk a certain hallway. He was following his school behavior plan for when he starts to have a meltdown;
* Who was bullied, including being held down and beaten. After the third bullying incident when he’s had enough and tries to defend himself, he is ticketed for disruption of school by affraying (fighting)
* Who, at age 17 and in the ninth grade, was told to withdraw from school and get a GED despite his low grade functioning (4th grade level) and in violation of the school’s duty under federal law to supply services that will allow him to be successful in school. He then was slapped with truancy fines and the court issued warrants for unpaid fines even though the student only receives social security disability benefits and could not pay.
ECI believes that the school ticketing issue should be of particular concern to the African American community. According to a report issued by Texas Appleseed, 97 percent of school tickets are discretionary (meaning the school does not have to issue the ticket). Moreover, young African Americans receive a disproportionate number of these tickets. In some school districts, African Americans are ticketed at a rate double their percentage of the school population.
We cannot afford to stand back and watch the efforts of our great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents eroded by a school system that would rather send children to jail than to college. If you need help fighting this up-hill battle, please contact the Earl Carl Institute at 713.313.1139 or visit our website at www.earlcarlinstitute.org for more information.
Find out what the law says about praying in school, punishment at school for saying something on Facebook, and handling police encounters.
Take the quiz to test your knowledge. Then, as you go through the answers, find out what the ACLU of Texas is doing to educate youth about their rights.
1. A school district that allows for corporal punishment cannot discipline a student in that manner without a parent’s written consent.
b. False – If a school district agrees to allow corporal punishment, a school within that district is permitted to physically discipline a student unless that student’s parent or guardian expressly opts out in writing before the beginning of each school year.
2. School administrative staff and police officers must receive training about student mental health and suicide prevention.
a.True – Thanks to a new law in Texas, all school districts must provide for training of all teachers, administrators, counselors, nurses, social workers, law enforcement officers, and all other staff on how to recognize signs of mental health issues and intervene early and appropriately.
3. When a student is the victim of bullying, a school:
a. Must notify the parents of the bullying victim
b. Must notify the parents of the bully
c. May handle the matter internally
d. Both a. & b. – House Bill 1942, which will go into effect as law this fall, requires school officials to provide for the timely notification of both students’ parents.
4. Can the school punish a student for something he or she says on Facebook?
c. Maybe – Students have a First Amendment right of free speech, but it has certain limits. Schools may be able to censor or punish students for cyberspeech if it is part of a school project, uses school computers, is accessed from a school computer lab, or if it is materially disruptive, vulgar, threatening, or advocates illegal drug use. However, the Supreme Court has said that political speech is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect,” and students generally have the right to state their political opinions in a non-disruptive manner.
5. When addressing an incident of bullying that results in school disruption, a school is required to consider whether a victim was acting in self-defense when determining the appropriate punishment for those involved.
A. True – House Bill 1942 also prohibits a student from being punished if he or she was reacting in self-defense to an act of bullying.
6. Do students have the right to pray in school?
a. No, because the ACLU will file a lawsuit to stop them.
b. Yes, in most circumstances. – Students have the right to pray at school, whatever their religion or religious denomination, as long as they do not disrupt the instructional or other activities of the school. A valedictorian or salutatorian may even include a prayer or religious message in their graduation speech. The school cannot compel or sponsor student prayer, however, or set aside time for prayer during the course of any school event or activity. Prayer is an individual right, and it may not be restricted or coerced by the school or any school official.
7. Can school officials search a student’s locker without the student or parent’s consent?
a. Yes, any time they want and for any reason.
b. No, they are never permitted to search a student’s locker without that student’s consent.
c. Yes, but the search must be reasonable and related to a suspected violation of the school code or the penal law. – Under Texas law, students do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their lockers. The school technically owns each locker and does not need a student’s consent before conducting a search. At the same time, the search must be reasonable and related to the suspected disciplinary violation that led to the search. For example, in Shoemaker v. State, the Beaumont Court of Appeals found that when a student was suspected of stealing credit cards, a nonconsensual, warrantless search of her locker for evidence of the theft was reasonable. In contrast, in Coronado v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that when a student was suspected of skipping school, a search of his locker for contraband was unreasonable under the circumstances.
8. Can minors obtain contraception without the consent of a parent or guardian?
a. Yes. A student has the right to obtain any over-the-counter or prescription contraception available to adults.
b. Yes, but with some limitations. – As a general rule, minors over the age of 16 do not need consent to buy any over-the-counter form of birth control. Prescription contraception, however, normally requires the consent of a parent or guardian.
c. No. Students do not have any right to contraception without parental consent.
9. If a school administrator wants to question a student about a crime or a violation of school rules, she must first recite the student’s Miranda rights (i.e., that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, etc.).
b. False – Unless the police are involved in a student’s questioning or detention, a student is not “in custody” so as to trigger his or her Miranda rights. As long as the administrator is acting within the scope of his official duties in questioning the student, he is not legally obligated to “Mirandize” the student.
10. Do minors have fewer rights than adults when they are stopped by the police?
b. No - While school administrators have greater leeway than law enforcement to question and search students on campus, police are held to the same legal standards when stopping minors and adults. This is true whether the stop occurs on- or off-campus.