Date: Fri 07-Jun-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: STEVEB

Quick Words:

Lerman-school-Reed-policy

Full Text:

Parents Charge School Policy Violates Federal Law

B Y S TEVE B IGHAM

Federal law states that once a student turns 18, he or she may assume all

right and responsibilities regarding his or her education.

That means students can write their own excuses for absences, inspect their

own records, such as report cards, and deal directly with administrators

regarding disciplinary action. In short, 18-year-old students can elect to

discontinue all communication between their school and their parents.

Kenneth and Laura Lerman of 55 Main Street recently received their son's

grades from Newtown High School. They believe that because the school sent the

grades home without the written permission of their 18-year-old son, it

violated the 1974 Privacy Act.

The NHS school handbook states, "Any student 18 years of age or older may

assume all rights and responsibilities regarding his education which have been

delegated to the parents of minors, as long as a note from a parent is on file

expressing this desire."

"That's not true, Mrs Lerman points out. "When you become 18 under federal law

all the rights previously held by your parents go to you. You don't need a

note."

The handbook also reads, "The school recognizes its moral responsibility to

the parent regardless of the age of the student in its charge, and will

attempt to cooperate with the parent to provide the best educational

experience for the student... The school reserves the right to revoke age of

majority privileges when a student has acted deceptively or used poor

judgment."

"It's a right, not a privilege," added Mrs Lerman. "The age of majority is the

law. Next, they'll say they're going to revoke the law of gravity because they

have just about the same chance."

The Lermans also point out that the law gives rights to the student at age 18

with no action required on the part of the student. In fact, the Newtown

family interprets the law to mean that the school must go to the student in

order to receive permission to send communications to parents rather than the

other way around. Also, as the Lermans point out, the school system is

required to inform students of their rights.

Superintendent of Schools John R. Reed said the high school works hard to

ensure that students are afforded their rights, while at the same time, doing

what's in the best interest of the family.

"We're trying to balance the letter of the law with what's in the best

interest of our students and their families," Dr Reed explained.

Nevertheless, Dr Reed said if the NHS policy is "not in alignment with the

letter of the law," it would be changed.

The superintendent said Mrs Lerman is correct in saying that the school can

not legally reserve the right to revoke age of majority privileges at any time

and plans to have the wording changed. However, Dr Reed said his perception is

that most area high schools do not automatically "disenfranchise" parents once

their student turns 18.

Mrs Lerman said she's not going to sue the school system over this alleged

error, in fact, her son is more than willing to allow grades to be sent home

to his parents. But she has threatened to notify federal authorities regarding

the alleged violations if the policy is not amended.

"Our biggest concern is that they're not following the law," she said. "And

there are serious ramifications for not following the law, including a loss of

federal funds."

Dr Reed said the phrase has been in the high school handbook for 14 years, and

he has never heard a parental complaint until now.