Magazine Information

Editorial Board

CHIEF EDITORS

ELISABETH KRIMBILL – Texas A&M San Antonio
JAMIE KUDLATS – University of North Carolina at Charlotte
KEVIN BRADY – University of Arkansas

DESIGN & ART DIRECTION

JAMIE KUDLATS

EDITORIAL BOARD

CHRIS THOMAS – University of Florida
CHRISTY SMITH – University of Arkansas
JEANNE SURFACE – University of Nebraska Omaha
WALTER HART – University of North Carolina at Charlotte

WANT TO WRITE FOR LAW & POLICY IN SCHOOLS?

We welcome article proposals, legal explainers, school-based studies, and resource submissions.
Email: [email protected]
Article Guidelines: lapis.educationlaw.org/write-for-us

The mission of Law & Policy in Schools is to make current education law and policy issues accessible, relevant, and actionable for people concerned about K-12 schools.

Law & Policy in Schools is published quarterly by the Education Law Association
c/o Jennifer Sughrue
290 Merwin Hall, College of Education
Florida Gulf Coast University
10501 FGCU Blvd.
Fort Meyers, FL 33965

Email: [email protected]
Website: lapis.educationlaw.org
© 2025 Law and Policy in Schools
All rights reserved.
p-ISSN 3070-2003

FROM THE EDUCATION LAW ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT

Dear LAPIS Readers,

Welcome to the inaugural issue of Law and Policy in Schools—a new publication dedicated to exploring the complex, evolving, and essential field of education law. As The Education Law Association (ELA), we are proud to sponsor this magazine, building upon seven decades of commitment to improving education by promoting a deep and unbiased understanding of its legal framework.

The pace of change today is relentless. New technologies, shifting social landscapes, and a continuous stream of judicial decisions and legislative action mean that the rules governing our schools are in perpetual motion. For educators, administrators, and legal practitioners, simply keeping up is a challenge—but understanding and applying the law is a necessity.

This magazine is designed to foster the interdisciplinary dialogue that is the hallmark of the ELA. Each issue will feature meticulously researched articles, insightful analysis of recent court decisions, and practical guides on applying legal principles in real-world educational settings.

We invite you to join us on this journey. Read, reflect, debate, and contribute. May this magazine become a vital resource in your professional life and a catalyst for positive legal and educational change for years to come.

-Lis

An Invisible Monster

By Janet R. Decker

Janet R. Decker, J.D., Ph.D. is an associate professor of education law at Indiana University’s School of Education. Her interest in law began while teaching students with autism. At IU, Dr. Decker works to strengthen educators’ legal literacy through her teaching and research. Her publications include The Legal Rights of School Leaders, Teachers, and Students (8th ed., 2018) and How to Prevent Special Education Litigation: Eight Legal Lesson Plans (2015).

 

“[T]oo many teachers view the law as a source of fear and anxiety—an invisible monster lurking in the shadows of the classroom, hallways, or playground, waiting to ensnare any educator who makes an innocent mistake” (Schimmel & Militello, 2007, p. 258).

School employees should not be anxious or fearful about the law. However, students in my school law courses often confess that they are nervous. They think that the law is something that is done to them instead of something that could help them feel more confident.

School employees’ anxiety is understandable considering that current educators find themselves on the battlefields of culture wars where school curriculum, policies, and practices have become increasingly more political and contentious. Numerous state and federal policymakers have passed laws limiting how teachers discuss racism and sexism and referring to these topics as “divisive concepts.” Our attention has shifted to questions like:

 

Therefore, it seems reasonable to characterize ‘the law’ as an external, living ‘monster’ that exists to potentially punish or ‘catch’ educators doing something wrong.

However, the law is not a malevolent monster, and my students come to realize this. They share that after learning more about the law, they feel a sense of relief. Instead of fearing it as a lurking, mysterious beast, my students recognize the relevance and usefulness of the law in their daily practice because nearly every aspect of education is governed by the law. They learn that when school employees are legally literate, they: 1) avoid unintentionally violating students’ and coworkers’ constitutional rights; 2) become empowered to advocate for the changes that they want to see; and 3) are prepared to make better decisions. Educators who are legally literate not only understand the key laws and legal principles impacting schools, but they also possess the skills to use the law to help them solve legal dilemmas. Ultimately, when school employees are legally literate, they are more confident, prevent lawsuits and legal violations, and better understand how to influence policy reform.

These positive consequences of increasing legal literacy are also why the Education Law Association has launched Law and Policy in Schools. We recognize that school employees are on the front lines and must make important split-second decisions. They cannot be paralyzed with a fear of the law. Instead, they need to be prepared to handle the many legal dilemmas that they face — which is why this magazine intends to make the law more accessible and less scary.

 

References

Schimmel & Militello (2007). Legal literacy for teachers: A neglected responsibility. Harvard Educational Review, 77(3), 257-284. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits. iu.edu/10.17763/haer.77.3.842n787555138746

Navigating AI in Schools: Are Your Student Handbook and Code of Conduct Ready?

By Christopher D. Thomas

Christopher D. Thomas, J.D., Ph.D., a former high school English teacher and school attorney, is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Florida.

Since bursting onto the scene in late 2022, ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence tools have transformed the work of teachers and school leaders. While there are significant opportunities for educators to leverage these tools in their work, educators have also been faced with the challenges of addressing student use of AI. When is it appropriate for students to use AI in their learning and assignments? How should students use AI when it is allowed? What can schools do to address the misuse and abuse of AI by students?
Ready or not, schools have been forced to grapple with these questions. In the 2023-24 school year, 64% of teachers reported student discipline cases involving AI, yet only 28% reported receiving training on how to respond if they suspected inappropriate AI use. As of July 2025, only 26 states had published official guidance on the use of AI in K-12 schools. This has meant that many school districts have had to “build the plane as they fly it,” responding to AI misuse as it happens without sufficient guidance. With the myriad of potential issues that can arise with student AI use—like academic misconduct, deep-fakes, or bullying and harassment—the potential for inconsistent, inequitable, and inefficient responses looms large.

However, many existing policies in student handbooks and codes of conduct, while they may not explicitly mention AI, are likely broad enough to cover misuses of AI. That was the lesson of Harris v. Adams.

In Harris, after his teachers suspected the unauthorized use of AI, a student admitted to using AI-generated text as part of his history assignment. The school had provided training and guidance on the appropriate use of AI, but it had not updated its academic integrity policies to incorporate AI. The student argued that the existing policy did not cover his actions and, even if it did, it failed to provide adequate notice that his conduct violated the policy. After the student sued in federal court, the trial court concluded that the student did not have a likelihood of success on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. For the court, the existing policy, which forbade the “unauthorized use of technology during an assessment,” was sufficiently broad to cover AI use.

Even though the Harris v. Adams decision favored the school, schools need to create clear expectations for the use of AI by students. The school, in that case, may not have added AI to its student handbook, but it took significant actions to communicate how students could appropriately use AI. Updating the student handbook and code of conduct could have removed the last bit of ambiguity.

In integrating AI into existing policies and procedures, there are several things for educators to consider:

Since 2022, schools have made tremendous progress in adapting to AI’s arrival, but policies are often still catching up. By updating student handbooks now, school leaders can move from reacting to AI to proactively shaping a culture of responsible, ethical, and legally sound AI use.

References

Harris v. Adams, 757 F. Supp. 3d 111 (D. Mass. 2024).

WHOSE SPEECH IS IT ANYWAY? What the Law Says About Student Protests

By Jamie Kudlats & Christopher D. Thomas

Jamie Kudlats, Ph.D., is a former middle school math teacher and principal. He is currently an assistant professor of educational leadership at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he teaches courses on leadership and education law at the master’s and doctoral levels.

Christopher D. Thomas, J.D., Ph.D., a former high school English teacher and school attorney, is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Florida.

Can students walk out in protest during the school day? What can they say—and what can schools do when they say it?

Courts have wrestled with these questions and provided guardrails and guidance, but like most situations, complexity, nuance, and heightened emotions can muddy the waters.

Student protests addressing a wide array of social, political, and educational issues persist in schools. In fact, students in the United States have been protesting at and against their schools for as long as we’ve had schools. From LGBTQ+ rights to climate change, and from curriculum content to immigration issues and racial justice, students can feel passionately about the issues that affect them and others.

The question of how schools should navigate potentially problematic student speech is regularly in the spotlight. Recently, for example, students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, wishing to protest the war in Gaza, opted to take their protest off-campus after students alleged administrators wouldn’t allow them to use the word “genocide.” So, to avoid being beholden to administrators’ requirements, they chose to leave school grounds.

So, what does the law say about all of this?

One of the most relevant recent cases stems from a Kansas school district’s reaction to students planning and participating in a protest in response to the 2018 Parkland school shooting in Florida. In the Shawnee Mission School District, administrators informed parents that students could participate without discipline and that the protests were not school-sponsored. But what happened next set off some legal alarm bells.

Administrators in Shawnee prohibited students from mentioning guns, school shootings, or gun violence—arguing that the district, as a public institution, couldn’t appear to take a political stance. But if this protest wasn’t school-sponsored, did they have that authority? Not really.

The Legal Framework

Two major U.S. Supreme Court precedents define this issue:

So the question became: Was the protest in Shawnee a form of pure student speech (protected under Tinker) or school-sponsored speech (more limited under Hazelwood)?

Despite labeling the protest “student-led,” school administrators exercised control, telling students what topics were off limits, confiscating speeches, shutting down protests early, and threatening discipline. One student organizer was told to stop mid-speech when she referenced gun violence. Student journalists were even barred from covering the protests and had their equipment confiscated.

In this case, the court rejected the district’s attempt to reframe the protest as school-sponsored simply because it happened during school hours and was monitored for safety. The takeaways? On school grounds, during school hours, and being monitored for safety doesn’t necessarily make a protest “school sponsored.” Plus, you’re on shaky ground when you declare a protest “student-led” in one breath and then attempt to control the message in the next.

Implications for School Leaders

School and district leaders are often caught in the middle—balancing the need to maintain order with a duty to uphold students’ constitutional rights. While the line can be a bit blurry, here are a few key considerations:

In Shawnee, the case eventually settled. Students received just $1 in damages, but as a part of the settlement, the cost came in policy reforms, staff training mandates, and paying thousands in legal fees. The more important takeaway, though, was the message that students’ voices matter, even when it’s uncomfortable.

When students speak out, schools have a choice. It’s not just about how to respond, but about what kind of civic learning environment schools want to foster. As one superintendent put it in a post-settlement apology: “It is our responsibility to help our students find their voice.”

That’s not just a legal principle. It’s an educational one.

Legal Brief

By Kevin P. Brady & Christy L. Smith

Kevin P. Brady, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Educational Leadership program at the University of Arkansas, and is a former President of the Education Law Association.

Christy L. Smith, Ed.D., is an Associate Professor of Practice in the Educational Leadership program at the University of Arkansas. She has 28 years of experience as a K-12 teacher, principal, & district administrator.

A short summary of a recent case, including back-ground context, legal issues, the court’s ruling and reasoning, and takeaways for educators

A.A. v. Northside Independent School District, 951 F.3d 678 (5th Cir., 2020)

Case Background

This case originates from San Antonio, Texas, when a legal suit was brought by the parent of K.K., an elementary student at Northside Independent School District (NISD) who received special education services for a serious emotional disturbance, based on a previous diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder. K.K. had other diagnoses as well, including autism spectrum disorder; severe, combined ADHD; and a mood disorder. K.K.’s parent claimed that when they enrolled him in NISD as a third grader during the 2015-2016 school year, almost all the special education services he received in the therapeutic program were eliminated, and K.K. was placed in a self-contained classroom setting where he received only three hours of behavior support weekly. During third and fourth grade, subsequent to multiple behavioral incidents, including homicidal and suicidal ideations, K.K. was hospitalized for more than 120 days. During one of these hospitalizations, he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.

After a parental request for a psychological evaluation and assessments, the district agreed to conduct a full

evaluation of K.K. The assessments revealed that K.K. qualified for speech services and had cognitive processing weaknesses impacting his academic achievement, but did not meet the existing criteria for a cognitive disability, and declined to conduct any further testing. Shortly thereafter, K.K. was placed in a different treatment center where he received counseling, occupational therapy, and speech therapy. While at the same treatment center, a separate evaluation revealed that K.K. had multi-faceted aggressive behaviors. NISD notified K.K.’s parent of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) conference, but she stated she would not attend. When K.K. returned to NISD in January 2017, an IEP plan was developed to specifically address his impulsive behaviors. In April 2017, a dyslexia evaluation indicated K.K. qualified for services, but none were added to his IEP because the team could not reach a consensus. At the parents’ request, an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) was attempted but not completed based on K.K.’s aggressiveness. In August 2017, K.K.’s parent requested a due process hearing, which ruled in favor of NISD.

After the due process hearing, K.K. was involved in an altercation with his mother and was later hospitalized. At the hospital, he attacked his mother and a nurse, then fled the emergency department. Texas Children’s Hospital recommended residential treatment, which K.K.’s parent requested the district consider. No IEP meeting was convened. K.K.’s parent notified family protective services that she was unable to meet her son’s worsening mental health needs and filed a “Refusal to Accept Parental Responsibility” case so the state of Texas would provide K.K. with residential treatment.

Legal Concerns

K.K.’s parent alleged that NISD committed both procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and sought legal remedy relief of compensatory education services. Under the IDEA, procedural violations are errors committed when due process requirements of the federal law are not followed. Substantive violations under the IDEA often occur based on procedural violations and result in a student not receiving the special education services they need, which can result in a failure to provide the stu-

dent with a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, which is required under federal law.

More specifically, K.K.’s parent alleged that NISD committed three procedural violations under the IDEA, including:

  1. failure to conduct timely evaluations as K.K.’s parent formally requested
  2. changed K.K.’s services without officially convening the IEP team
  1. prevented K.K.’s parent from actively participating in the decision-making process by failing to provide her with prior written notice (PWN) of changes to K.K.’s special education and related services

Legal Issue

Was the student’s IEP sufficient to provide him with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), as required under the IDEA?

Court Decision

Yes. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of K.K.’s parent’s motion for summary judgment against the school district for alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding that the

parent failed to meet her legal burden of showing that the school district violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. In this case, none of the incidents the parent claimed amounted to a procedural violation, and the court was not convinced that the student was denied the required free and appropriate public education (FAPE) provision under the IDEA.

The court also held that there were no substantive IDEA violations. The court was satisfied that the school district took the necessary steps to ensure that the student was being properly serviced under this individualized education plan (IEP), despite K.K.’s significant absences from school based on his hospitalizations.

Takeaways for Educators

“Procedural defects alone do not constitute a violation of the right to a [free appropriate public education] unless they result in the loss of an educational opportunity.” Adam J. ex rel. Robert J. v. Keller Independent School District, 328 F.3d 804, 812 (5th Cir., 2003).

The IDEA requires public school districts to conduct reevaluations of enrolled special education students under the following two conditions:

  1. the district “determines that the educational or related services needs… of the child warrant a reevaluation” OR
  2. “the child’s parents or teacher requests a reevaluation.” (34 C.F.R.§ 300.303(a).

Based on the Supreme Court’s 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 decision, a student’s IEP does not need to be perfect, nor is an IEP required to insulate a student from experiencing hardships. Rather, in order for an IEP to be sufficient, it must be individually designed to meet the student’s unique needs and be supported by services that allow the student to benefit from instruction.

In the specific case, the Fifth Circuit was legally satisfied that the NISD took the appropriate steps to ensure that student K.K. was properly provided with special education and supporting services under the IDEA. Since the court believed he was, they concluded that there was no substantive violation of the IDEA.

2025 Supreme Court Update

Each fall, we’ll provide a quick roundup of the U.S. Supreme Court’s education-related cases from the previous term, along with a look ahead to the next term. The goal isn’t to overwhelm with legal jargon – it’s to give school leaders, teachers, and policymakers a clear sense of what’s happening at the Court and why it matters. This is your U.S. Supreme Court education cheat sheet!

Decided in the 2024-2025 Term

Mahmoud v. Taylor (June 27, 2025)

Issue: Can schools refuse parent opt-outs when lessons include content that may be perceived as potentially burdening religion?

Ruling: No. Parents likely have Free Exercise rights to notice and opt out opportunities across the curriculum.

What this means: Opt-outs have long been offered for health or sex-ed curricula. The decision in Mahmoud potentially paves the way for parents to opt out of any aspect of the curriculum if they believe it places a burden on their religious freedom.

What you should do or think about:

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools (June 12, 2025)

Issue: What standard applies when students sue schools for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/§504?

Ruling: The Court rejected a “bad faith/gross misjudgment” test. Students may bring claims under the same “deliberate indifference” standard used in other ADA contexts

What this means: It will now be easier for students – or at least not as hard – to bring disability-discrimination claims.

What you should do or think about:

FCC v. Consumers’ Research (E-Rate) (June 27, 2025)

Issue: Is the E-Rate/Universal Service Fund constitutional?

Ruling: Yes. While this wasn’t an education case per se, the E-Rate program has provided schools with funding and support for internet/broadband infrastructure. This decision allows the program to continue.

What this means: Schools can continue to rely on E-Rate funding for internet, Wi-Fi, and connectivity upgrades without interruption.

What you should do or think about:

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (May 22, 2025)

Issue: Must states allow religious charter schools?

Ruling: The Court split 4–4 (Justice Barrett recused), which left Oklahoma’s rejection of a religious charter school in place. This ruling was limited to the OK case and did not set any national precedent.

What this means: The legality of religious charter schools will continue to play out state by state for now. It’s probably fair to say that we haven’t seen the last of this issue.

What you should do or think about:

Other notable observations from the 2024-2025 term

SCOTUS declined several petitions related to political/student speech, leaving existing speech frameworks/standards in place. E.g. Tinker (the disruption/infringing on others’ rights standard), Bethel (lewd/vulgar speech), Hazelwood (school-sponsored/endorsed speech), Mahanoy (off-campus speech).

2025 Supreme Court Update

Looking Ahead to the 2025-2026 Term: Petitions Granted as of September 2025

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Issue: Whether states may restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports to students whose sex assigned at birth is female.

What this means: This will be the first time the Court addresses transgender participation in K–12 athletics under Title IX. The outcome may likely set nationwide rules for athletic eligibility for transgender students.

Little v. Hecox

Issue: Another challenge to a transgender sports ban, similar to B.P.J. This case is out of Iowa.

What this means: It’s possible that the court will consolidate this case with the B.P.J. case, meaning that they could combine briefs and arguments, and potentially provide one opinion that covers both cases. It’s also possible that they won’t be consolidated – leading to separate briefs or arguments, and possibly separate opinions. There are a few different ways these two cases could be structured.

Looking Ahead to the 2025-2026 Term: Petitions Not Yet Granted as of September 2025

Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association

Issue: Can a private Christian school use the stadium loudspeaker for a communal prayer before a state championship football game?

Status: Petition pending. The 11th Circuit said the prayer would be “government speech” subject to regulation; the school argues that violates Free Speech and Free Exercise rights.

What this means: If the Court agrees to take up this case, it could further refine the line between private religious expression and school-sponsored speech at public events. Schools and athletic associations would need clear policies on religious expression at games, assemblies, and other extracurricular activities.

Other Notable Recent SCOTUS Actions

In September, South Carolina asked the Court for an emergency order that would have allowed the state to enforce its law requiring students to use restrooms matching the sex listed on their birth certificate. The 4th Circuit (which includes South Carolina) had previously ruled in Grimm v. Gloucester (2020) that school boards can’t deny restroom access to transgender students, as that would violate Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Subsequently, and despite the 4th Circuit’s Grimm ruling, South Carolina passed their law requiring students to use restrooms matching their birth sex. A transgender boy challenged the law after being denied use of the boys’ bathroom, and a district court sided with the boy, issuing an order that allowed him to continue using the boys’ bathroom while the lawsuit proceeded. South Carolina asked the 4th Circuit to put that order on hold, and the 4th Circuit denied that request. So, South Carolina, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in. They declined, so the boy can continue to use the boys’ bathroom while the challenge to the SC law plays out. Like the transgender athlete cases, we wouldn’t be surprised to see a transgender bathroom case pop up at the Supreme Court in short order.

Social Media Insights for School Leaders

By Elisabeth Krimbill

Dr. Elisabeth Krimbill is currently serving as the President of the Education Law Association. She is a former school teacher, assistant principal, and principal in San Antonio. Dr. Krimbill owns the company Organizational Culture Insights (OCI) and she serves on numerous non-profit agencies who support medically fragile children in schools. She is an Associate Professor in the Education Leadership Program at Texas A&M University-San Antonio. Her research focus includes law, ethics, leadership, and students’ rights.

School districts reasonably expect all employee online communications to reflect the highest professional standards of the organization and the local community

The widespread use of platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and others demands that educators maintain a high degree of professionalism in their online interactions. An educator’s digital behavior

should mirror the honesty, respect, and consideration they would use in face-to-face communication. School districts reasonably expect all employee online communication to reflect the highest professional standards of the organization and the local community.

The consequences of failing to meet this standard are well-documented. High-profile cases of disciplinary action against employees for expressing personal, yet unprofessional, views online highlight the risk. Remarks deemed disruptive or offensive—such as teachers calling students “future criminals” or “gorillas”—can shock a school community, leading to job loss and a loss of public trust. School employees must constantly be aware of the negative impact their public or easily discoverable remarks can have.

While the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution protects freedom of speech, this right is not absolute, and certain exceptions exist, such as speech that poses a clear and present danger, constitutes fighting words, or maliciously defames a person. For educators, two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Connick v. Myers (1983), provide the legal framework for evaluating employee speech.

These cases established a two-pronged test for protected speech:

  1. Is the speech about a matter of public concern?
  2. Does the educator’s right to free speech outweigh the employer’s need for the organization to operate effectively and efficiently?

Many educators find their online postings are not legally protected because the speech is deemed a matter of personal interest, or, crucially, because the comments become public and interfere with the effective functioning and educational mission of the school. Even posts an educator considers private or personally motivated can disrupt the school environment if they cause the community to lose respect for the teacher to interfere with the school’s mission.

This ever-evolving technology presents both opportunities and significant challenges, forcing campus leaders to balance the potential benefits of digital communication with the need to establish appropriate boundaries, respect free speech rights, and uphold professional standards.

To provide clear ethical direction, the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) adopted the Model Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE) in 2018. Its Fifth Guiding Principle specifically addresses the Responsible and Ethical Use of Technology, stating that ethical educators must “Exercise prudence in maintaining separate and professional virtual profiles, keeping personal and professional lives distinct.”

In essence, educators must be vigilant to ensure that appropriate boundaries of time, place, and role are maintained when using electronic communication. While social media offers countless positive opportunities to connect and share, educators must remain acutely aware of the challenges and negative ramifications that can accompany online communication.

Adhering to professional and ethical standards is paramount to ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all students and stakeholders.

WORDS OF WISDOM, PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR LEGALLY LITERATE EDUCATORS

By Justin Oxley

Dr. Justin Oxley currently serves as Executive Director for School Administration in the North East Independent School District (NEISD) in San Antonio, TX. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Bowling Green State University, a master’s degree from Our Lady of the Lake University, and a doctorate from the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). Dr. Oxley taught choir and coached before serving as an Assistant Principal. In his current role as Executive Director, Dr. Oxley is responsible for supervising, mentoring, and coaching campus administrators across the district. He also coordinates leadership development and staff training programs for current and aspiring administrators throughout NEISD.

In today’s evolving education landscape, school leadership shapes not only academic success but also culture, morale, compliance, and long-term sustainability. The role of a school administrator is complex, demanding,

and often underappreciated. Success requires more than managerial skills or knowledge of legal policy—it takes vision, empathy, resilience, and a deep understanding of human nature. For current and aspiring leaders, these timeless principles – or “words of wisdom”- can serve as anchors amidst the myriad daily challenges.

Lead with Vision, Not Just Compliance

Leadership is more than enforcing rules or checking boxes. A strong vision inspires teachers, students, and parents to work toward common goals, providing purpose and direction that extends beyond test scores or inspection reports.

Build Trust Before You Demand Results

Trust is the currency of leadership. Without it, even the best initiatives fail. School administrators must actively build relationships with teachers, staff, students, and parents, and build trust by being visible, consistent, empathetic, and honest. Micromanagement or favoritism quickly erodes credibility, while listening and follow-through inspire effort.

Empower, Don’t Control

Thriving schools strike a balance between accountability and teacher autonomy. Empowered

educators feel trusted, take initiative, and foster creativity in students, while micromanaging can lead to burnout and resentment. Leaders should provide clarity and support while giving educators the autonomy to innovate and adapt within their classrooms.

Be a Lifelong Learner

Strong administrators model the behavior they want to see in their staff and students. This includes a commitment to continuous learning. As educational practices, technologies, and societal needs continually evolve, administrators who remain open, curious, and adaptable are better positioned to lead schools through change. Acknowledging mistakes, seeking feedback, and growing from failure are important traits for a successful leader.

Empowerment for teachers must align with their legal obligations. Leaders must empower staff with clear legal boundaries and the resources (training, time) to meet state and federal mandates, particularly in areas like special education, mandatory reporting, and data privacy (FERPA).

Prioritize Culture Over Strategy

While strategic plans are vital, culture eats strategy for breakfast. A toxic culture will undermine improvement

efforts, while a positive one ensures schools thrive. A culture is shaped by words, actions, and priorities, and leaders who recognize, respect, and collaborate with staff can build a healthy school culture. Maintaining that culture is not just an HR issue—it’s a core driver of student success.

Communicate Clearly and Often

Communication is everything. Poor communication leads to confusion, conflict, and inefficiency. Strong school leaders are skilled communicators, articulating vision, providing constructive feedback, and handling difficult conversations with professionalism. Most importantly, though, great communicators are also great listeners.

Take Care of the Caregivers

Teachers and staff are stretched thin. A wise administrator makes teacher mental health, workload balance, and professional growth a top priority. From managing workloads to genuine recognition and accessible mental health resources, leaders must be committed to supporting their faculty and staff.

Student-Centered, Always

All decisions—budgeting, staffing, scheduling, curriculum—must prioritize students. While difficult decisions may not please everyone, keeping students at the heart of every decision ensures moral clarity and long-term success. A student-centered leader advocates for the vulnerable and recognizes individual needs, ensuring equity, inclusivity, and access.

Stay Grounded During Storms

Crisis test leaders. Whether it’s a health emergency, a budget cut, or a community tragedy, leadership can be stressful and isolating. In difficult moments, calm, compassion, and clarity are key. Developing coping strategies, professional networks, and personal boundaries can help leaders stay grounded under pressure and weather the temporary storms.

Leave a Legacy, Not Just a Job

Finally, great school leaders cultivate future leaders and build systems that will endure beyond their tenure. Their success is measured by the lasting impact of their efforts. Leaders should ask themselves what they will leave behind. A lasting legacy is revealed through the staff one mentors, the students one protects and nurtures, and the positive culture one maintains.

LAPIS Book Club

Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education: Applying Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas, A REVIEW

Shapiro and Stefkovich’s Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education is an essential text for anyone aspiring to or currently holding an administrative position. While many leadership books focus on legal compliance, this book uniquely centers the complex process of moral reasoning. Its core strength lies in the “Multiple Ethical Paradigm” approach, which is the heart of the decision-making model. This method guides leaders to view complex issues through four distinct lenses: Justice (fairness and legal adherence), Care (relationships and context), Critique (social justice and equity), and Profession (school codes and standards). The authors compellingly demonstrate how relying on just one lens can lead to incomplete or flawed solutions. This book is a powerful tool for developing resilient and conscientious school leadership.

References

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2022). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying

theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (5 th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Its All Latin To Me

In Loco Parentis: In the Place of the Parent

This term refers to the legal responsibility that schools and educators have to care for and protect students while under their supervision. While it once allowed schools broad authority over students, its use has narrowed over the years, being applied primarily to issues of student safety, discipline, and child welfare.

Insights Reflections on Education Law by ELA Past Presidents

The Importance of Education Law

By Charles J. Russo

Charles J. (Charlie) Russo, M.Div., J.D., Ed.D., the 1998-99 President of the Education Law Association, and 2002 recipient of the McGhehey Award, is the Joseph Panzer Chair in Education in the School of Education and Health Sciences, Co-Director of its Ph.D. Program, and Research Professor of Law in the School of Law at the University of Dayton. Russo writes and speaks extensively on issues in Education Law in the United States and internationally.

Introduction

Aware of the litigiousness of American society, we in the Education Law Association (ELA) focus on helping all interested in our field so as to better protect themselves and their rights. Accordingly, this brief column highlights the importance of Education, or School, as it is also called, Law, terms I use interchangeably throughout.

Prior to 1954 the Supreme Court addressed few cases in K-12 schools and higher education. As such, Education Law traces its birth as an area of study and practice to 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, arguably the Court’s most important case in its history. Brown was so significant that ELA was founded in 1954, and headquartered in Topeka, Kansas, through the mid-1990s, to help its members and others better understand School Law.

Since Brown outlawed racial segregation in public schooling while ushering in an era of equal educational opportunities, our Nation has undergone a myriad of far-reaching educational and legal transformations. Among the key statutory post-Brown developments are the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, now the Every Student Succeeds Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and 1975’s Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Moreover, hardly a year passes when the Supreme Court does not address at least one education related dispute.

School Law and Policy

As ongoing evidence of its importance, seemingly countless articles and books on School Law, including those published by ELA and our members, highlight the importance of maintaining legal literacy by educators. Because it is important for educators, in particular, as they work with their lawyers to translate abstract legal principles into sound working policies, our newest publication, Law & Policy in Schools, is designed to provide guidance in this crucial area. Among the topics we cover at ELA and in our classes are school governance; contracts; curricular issues; student, teacher, and parental rights; equal educational opportunity-equity concerns special education; school safety; the status of aid to faith-based schools and religion in public education; technology; and issues in higher education.

Faculty members and lawyers can help educators to appreciate the value of School Law by teaching them to focus on such basic principles as due process, ensuring that all receive the process they are due, and equal protection, treating similarly situated people similarly. As important as abstract legal principles are, we must concentrate on helping practitioners apply these concepts in concrete, real-life situations rather than having them merely memorize case names and/or citations apart from their day-to-day applications. If we fail to treat the law as a practical discipline, we shortchange its real value, rendering it simply another class or collection of information likely to be ignored rather than valued.

School Law remains significant because it presents the challenge of preparing educators to develop polices proactively. Being proactive is important because legal changes in Education Law, and other areas, are typically reactive insofar as modifications usually occur as a result of controversy, litigation, and/ or legislative responses to unmet or unresolved needs. In balancing the proactive and reactive dimensions of School Law, classes and professional development sessions should not become “Law School 101.”

Rather than trying to turn educators into lawyers dealing with procedural matters such as jurisdiction and process serving, instruction, whether at ELA’s annual conference and/or through our publications, are designed to accomplish two important goals. First, we aim to teach educators, and our members, to keep their knowledge of School Law in this ever evolving area current by using materials from ELA to develop sound policies to enhance school operations.

Second, classes on School Law should provide educators with sufficient awareness of the legal dimensions of issues to better help them to frame questions for their attorneys. In other words, what we offer at ELA is a kind of triage that can help educators to ask their lawyers the “right” questions to better help them explain their issues they are facing.

Educators should thus treat their attorneys as partners not only in problem solving reactively but also in developing proactive policies to avoid difficulties. In so doing, we at ELA encourage educators and their lawyers to engage in preventative School Law to avoid litigation. Being proactive is consistent with preventative law as educators can identify potential challenges in advance while working with their attorneys to avoid litigation rather than winning cases that could have been avoided. Because it is imperative for educators to work with lawyers who specialize in School Law, we are here to help by providing up-to-date, cutting edge information on what is happening in our field.

Chalk & Gavel: An Education Law Podcast

Episode #:54

Title: Guidance Counselors and Mandatory Reporters: When do Educators Have Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse and Neglect?

Case Name: Small v. Board of Education of Streator Township High School District #40, 221 N.E.3d 534 (2022)

Episode 54 explores a fascinating case related to mandatory reporting laws. A school counselor was terminated for failing to report an alleged inappropriate relationship between a high school student and a teacher. The counselor, Lisa Small, was informed by another student about the situation, but she did not report it, citing her perceived need for firsthand information, which she did not get. After other facts came to light and an investigation revealed the teacher’s inappropriate actions, Small was fired for failing to report. As is the case on every episode of Chalk & Gavel, this action led to a lawsuit.

The case highlights the critical importance of understanding and adhering to mandatory reporting obligations. Educators must recognize that their role is to report suspicions, not to investigate or obtain proof before deciding to do so. This case serves as a reminder that when in doubt, it’s crucial to report any concerns to the appropriate authorities to ensure student safety and compliance with legal responsibilities. Interestingly, though, the court sided with Small, determining that the school should not have fired her. Check out the full episode on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get Chalk & Gavel!