School Threats on Social Media

SCHOOL THREATS ON
SOCIAL MEDIA
Ellen Owens Smith & Khayyam Eddings
December 5, 2018

School administrators and law enforcement officials find
themselves in untenable position of having to make critical
decisions about the validity of threats with little to no threat
assessmen tprotocols.
In the wake of the Parkland shooting, gun related issues
and law enforcement solutions have become the central
focus to the exclusion of a comprehensive, all-hazards
approach to both violence prevention and response.

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL THREATS
AND INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE FOR
THE 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Threats of Violence
“Threats” are defined as an expressed intent to do harm.
Threats INCREASED 62% from Previous SY
1,494 MORE Threats in Spring 2018 than Fall 2017
(INCREASE of 159%)
Source: The Educator’s School Safety Network

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Types of Threats
MOST COMMON THREATS
38.8% of ALL THREATS were SHOOTING THREATS
35.8% GENERALIZED/UNSPECIFIED THREATS
22.5 %BOMB THREATS (22.5%).

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Method of Delivery
39.2 % SOCIAL MEDIA
20% WRITTEN THREATS
(MOST COMMONLY IN RESTROOM)
12.7% VERBAL COMMENTS

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Demographics
81% of ALL THREATS CAME FROM STUDENTS
7.3% JUVENILES WHO WERE NOT STUDENTS
6.8% ADULTS WHO WERE NOT PARENTS OR STAFF
1% PARENTS OR STAFF

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Demographics
83% of ALL THREATS MADE BY MALES
41% were 13 - 15 years old
40% were 16 - 18 years old
12% were 18 years or older
8% were 12 years or younger

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Schools Impacted
59% HIGH SCHOOLS
25% MIDDLE SCHOOLS
17% ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

2017-2018 Threat Analysis:
The Parkland Shooting’s Impact on Threats
43% of All Threats Documented in the 2017-2018 SY
Occurred in the 30 Days Just After the Parkland Shooting.
PRIOR TO PARKLAND EVENT
AVERAGE was 10.2 THREATS PER DAY
POST PARKLAND EVENT
AVERAGE ROSE TO 24.2 THREATS PER DAY

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Incidents of Violence
279 INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE in 2017-2018 SY
vs
131 INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE IN 2016-2017 SY
(113% INCREASE)
VIOLENT INCIDENTS INCREASED 109% from FALL to SPRING
90 Violent Incidents in Fall 2017
188 Violent Incidents in Spring 2018

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Types of Incidents
GUNS FOUND ON CAMPUS
SHOOTINGS OR SHOTS FIRED
THWARTED ATTACKS OR PLOTS
BOMB THREATS OR INCIDENTS
SUICIDES

77 GUNS FOUND ON CAMPUS [28% of All Incidents]
21 Guns 2016/2017 SY vs 77 Guns 2017/2018 SY
(Staggering Increase of 267%)
75% Increase in Guns Brought on Campus after Parkland Shooting
28 Guns Found Before vs. 49 Guns Found After

70 SHOOTINGS OR SHOTS FIRED [25% of All Incidents]
27 Shootings 2016/2017 vs. 35 School Shootings 2017/2018
30% INCREASE

38 THWARTED ATTACKS OR PLOTS [14% of All Incidents]
38 Planned Attacks Thwarted
29% (11 Potential Attacks) Occurred Fall 2017
71% (21 Potential Attacks) Occurred Spring 2018
55% of ALL THWARTED PLOTS
Uncovered After Parkland Shooting on February 14, 2018

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Bomb Incidents
2017/2018
1 Detonations
4 Explosive Devices
22 Suspicious Items
(10% of All Violent Incidents)
2016/2017
2 Detonations,
2 Explosive Devices
24 Suspicious Items
21% of All Violent Incidents
Still, bomb threats and incidents accounted for 22% of all the threats
and incidents recorded this past school year, compared to 37% of all
threats and incidents the previous year.
vs.

2017-2018 Threat Analysis: Suicides on Campus
Suicides that occurred on school campuses accounted
for 4% of all violent incidents.
The actual number of suicides more than doubled
from 4 to 10 in 2017-2018.

94% of All
Incidents of Violence
Were Perpetrated
By Males.

The Overall Impact of the Parkland Shooting
Actual Number of Violent Incidents Increased Overall in 2017-2018
Increase NOT Particularly Significant After the Parkland Shooting.
136 (49%) Incidents of Violence Took Place Before Parkland v
142 (51%) Incidents of Violence Took Place After Parkland
It could be argued that the Parkland shooting was not the catalyst
for the violent incidents and threats that followed, but was
instead a horrific example of the overall increase in violence that
was already occurring during the 2017-2018 school year.

Use of Threat Assessment Protocol
1. TARGETED INCIDENTS ARE RARELY
SUDDEN, IMPULSIVE ACTS
2. STUDENTS DO NOT TYPICALLY “JUST SNAP”
3. INCIDENTS APPEAR TO BE THE END RESULT OF A
COMPREHENSIBLE PROCESS OF THINKING AND
BEHAVIOR

TYPICAL BEHAVIOR
BEGINS With An IDEA
PROGRESSES to the DEVELOPMENT of a PLAN,
MOVES to SECURING the MEANS to Carry Out the Plan
CULMINATES in an ATTACK.
Use of Threat Assessment Protocol

TIME SPAN Between Attacker’s DECISION and ACTUAL INCIDENT MAY BE SHORT
WHEN INFORMATION OF A POSSIBLE ATTACK ARISES SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT NEED TO MOVE
QUICKLY TO INQUIRE AND INTERVENE IN THE POSSIBLE PLAN
Prior to Most Incidents Other People Knew
About the Attacker’s Idea and/or Plan to Attack.
STUDENTS AND FRIENDS CAN BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF PREVENTION EFFORTS
SCHOOLS MUST ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO REPORT
IDENTIFY AND BREAK DOWN BARRIERS
IN THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT THAT MAY
DISCOURAGE STUDENTS FROM COMING FORWARD
USE OF THREAT ASSESSMENT PROTOCALS

• The Safe School Initiative study by the Department of
Education and the Secret Service found that most attackers did
not threaten their target directly and some made no threat at all.
Instead, other behaviors and communications that may prompt
concern, such as hearing that a young person is talking about
bringing a gun to school, are indicators of a possible threat and
therefore should prompt the initiation of efforts to gather
information.
• It is IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
Someone who MAKES a threat–tells people they intend to harm someone;
and
Someone who POSES a threat–engages in behaviors that indicate an
intent, planning, or preparation for an attack.

• Conducting threat assessment inquiries should focus particular
attention on any information that indicates that a student poses a
threat, regardless of whether the student has told a potential
target he or she intends to do them harm.
• There is no accurate or useful “profile” of students who engage
in targeted school violence.
• Reliance on profiles to predict future school attacks carries two
substantial risks: (1) the great majority of students who fit any
given profile of a “school shooter” actually will not pose a risk of
targeted violence; and (2) using profiles will fail to identify
some students who in fact pose a risk of violence, but share few
if any characteristics with prior attackers.

• Most attackers engaged in some behavior, prior to the incident,
that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
• Young people send signals – both direct and indirect – to others
regarding their problems. The boys and young men who
engaged in the targeted school violence examined by the Safe
School Initiative were not “invisible” students. In fact, nearly all
of these students engaged in behaviors that caused concern to
at least one person, usually an adult – and most concerned at
least three people.
• Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or
personal failures. Many had considered or attempted suicide.

SCHOOL SHOOTERS PRIOR TO THEIR ATTACKS
• >3/4 HISTORY OF SUICIDAL THOUGHT, THREATS,
GESTURES OR ATTEMPTS
• MOST KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN SEVERELY DEPRESSED OR
DESPERATE AT SOME POINT BEFORE THEIR ATTACK
• MANY FELT BULLIED, PERSECUTED OR INJURED BY
OTHERS
MANY ATTACKERS HAVE DESCRIBED BULLYING
EXPERIENCES APPROACHING TORMENT

SCHOOL SHOOTERS PRIOR TO THEIR ATTACKS
• MOST HAD ACCESS TO WEAPONS
• MOST HAD PREVIOUSLY USED WEAPONS
When the idea of an attack exists, any effort to acquire, prepare, or use
a weapon or ammunition, including bomb-making components, may be
a significant move in the attacker’s progression from idea to action.
FEDERAL GUN-FREE SCHOOL ACT Generally Requires:
• MINIMUM 1 YEAR EXPULSON FOR BRINGING GUN TO SCHOOL
• ALL VIOLATIONS TO BE REPORTED TO LOCAL LAW INFORCEMENT

IN GREATER THAN ½ OF THE INCIDENTS
OTHERS ASSISTED THE ATTACKER
WITH PLANNING OR EXECUTION OF THE ATTACK
ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING THE ATTACKER TO
SHOOT OTHERS AT SCHOOL
HELPING THE ATTACKER SELECT TARGETS
TRAINING THE SHOOTER HOW TO USE A WEAPON

MOST ATTACKS STOPPED BY MEANS OTHER
THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVENTION
MOST ATTACKS BRIEF IN DURATION
The short duration of most incidents of targeted school violence
argues for the importance of developing preventative measures in
addition to any emergency planning for a school or school district.

Threat Assessment at School –Brief Facts and Tips
1. Threat assessment involves determining whether a student poses a
threat of violence (they have intent and means to carry out the threat).
2. A threat is an expression of intent to physically or sexually harm
someone. This expression may be spoken, written, or gestured. Threats
can be expressed directly or indirectly to the victim or to others, and
threats may be explicit or implied.
3. A threat to harm others can be transient (i.e., expression of anger or
frustration that can be quickly or easily resolved or substantive (i.e.,
serious intent to harm others that involves a detailed a plan and means).
4. All school districts should develop and implement threat
assessment procedures that are clearly communicated to staff and
families.
5. A school threat assessment is conducted by a multi-disciplinary team
of trained professionals, including a school mental health professional,
administrators and school resource officer or local law enforcement.

6. A threat assessment involves evaluation and classification of the threat
(i.e., transient versus substantive) and appropriate response and
intervention, including notification and involvement of parents and a
written safety plan. It should include a suicide risk assessment as these
students are often also suicidal.
7. There is NO profile of a student who will cause harm. There is no easy
formula or profile of risk factors that accurately determines whether a
student is going to commit a violent act. The use of profiling increases
the likelihood of misidentifying students who are thought to pose a
threat.
8. Most students who pose a substantive threat indicate their intentions
in some way. Examples include statements to friends, ideas in written
work, drawings, and postings on social media that threaten harm.
9. It is important to act quickly if you are concerned about a threat. Steps to
take can include contacting the appropriate school administrator, the
school crisis team leader, the school-employed mental health professional
and/or local law enforcement immediately.
SOURCE: Cornell, D., & Sheras, P. (2005). Guidelines for responding to student threats of
violence. Longmont, CO: SoprisWest
Threat Assessment at School –Brief Facts and Tips

CASE STUDY:
Student Expelled for Terroristic Threatening
Related to School Shooting Posts on Social Media
McKinney
v.
Huntsville School District

Facts of the Case
 KP POSTS INSTAGRAM PICTURE OF HIMSELF WEARING A TRENCH COAT AND HOLDING AN
ASSAULT RIFLE. THE POST HAS NO CAPTION
 KP OPENS INSTAGRAM THE NEXT MORNING AND SEES HIS CLASSMATES HAVE
COMMENTED MAKING REFERENCES TO SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. KP REMOVES THE
POSTING
 KP POSTS 2nd PHOTO of HIMSELF WITHOUT A GUN and a CAPTION THAT HE DID NOT
INTEND FOR HIS POSTING TO BE A THREAT and THAT HE WOULD NEVER DO THAT
 HUNTSVILLE POLICE BEGIN AN INVESTIGATING
 KP STATES HE WAS TRYING TO EMULATE 1920’S STYLE MOBSTER WITH TOMMY GUN
 KP ADMITS HE KNEW SEVERAL CLASSMATES WOULDS SEE HIS POST
 HUNTSVILLE POLICE DETERMINE KP DID NOT POSE A THREAT TO THE SCHOOL
 NO LEGAL CHARGES ARE BROUGHT AGAINST KP
Case Study: McKinney v. Huntsville School District

Facts of the Case
 PRINCIPAL BEGINS GETTING CALLS AND TEXTS FROM
PARENTS AND TEACHERS AFTER KP’s 1ST POST
 KP’S 2ND POST DOES NOT ALLEVIATE THEIR FEARS;
SCHOOL STAFF, PARENTS AND STUDENTS REMAIN
CONCERNED
 KP’S POSTS WERE MADE JUST 10 DAYS AFTER THE
PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING
 POLICE AND FBI REQUEST THE SCHOOL PULL STUDENTS
FROM CLASS TO DISCUSS IMPORTANCE OF
APPROPRIATE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS

Facts of the Case
 KP IS SUSPENDED FOR 10 DAYS AND RECOMMENDED
FOR 365 DAY SUSPENSION
 SCHOOL BOARD UPHOLDS THE EXPULSION
 SCHOOL BOARD RELYS ON 2 STUDENT HANDBOOK POLICIES
WHICH:
 ALLOWS FOR DISCIPLINE FOR OFF CAMPUS CONDUCT
 PROHIBITS THREATS WHICH INTENTIONALLY DISRUPT SCHOOL
FUNCTIONS

PARENTS SUE TO ENJOIN THE EXPULSION
• Preliminary injunctions are heard on an expedited basis
• Often, the court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction will be
dispositive of the case
• 4 Factors for Injunction:
• 1- fair chance of succeeding on the merits
• 2 – threat of irreparable harm
• 3 – balance of respective harms
• 4 – public interest

1. Fair Chance of Success on the Merits
Plaintiff’s alleged that any discipline for the post was an
infringement on KP’s First Amendment rights.
Generally, students’ speech is protected:
“In absence of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate
their speech, students are entitled to freedom of
expression of their views. School officials cannot suppress
expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to
contend.” Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. Sch. Dist.,
393 U.S. 503(1969)

Is KP’s posted protected under the First Amendment?
• Not all speech is protected speech
• “Conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any
reason whether it stems from time, place or type of behavior
– materially disrupts class work or involves substantial
disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not
immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
speech” Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393
U.S. 503(1969)
• School’s ability to regulate off campus speech is more limit

Is KP’s post protected under First Amendment?
• Challenged speech must have an impact on the school
environment
• School does not have to wait until a disruption occurs before
taking action
• School may act when it is reasonably foreseeable that the
speech the school community and cause a substantial
disruption to the educational setting – Lee’s Summitt, 696
F.3d 771(8th Cir. 2012)

What is considered a substantial disruption?
• Substantial Disruption requires that the speech (1) be
reasonably calculated to reach the school environment; and
(2) so egregious as to pose a serious safety risk or other
substantial disruption in that environment.
• So egregious means making overt threats of serious
personal harm to classmates or making offensive racist
comments and degrading sexual references to particular
individuals

Court Found Post Not Protected
• Court found that KP’s post was reasonably calculated to reach the
school community because most of the followers of KP’s Instagram
account were students
• Parents, teachers and administrators were aware of and concerned
about the posts
• Police and FBI were involved from the time the post was made
through the beginning of the new school week
• Students and teachers expressed fear about coming to school
• Classes were disrupted by school wide assemblies held by the
police pertaining to social media

Court Did Not Consider Student’s Intent in
Posting the Photo
• “The focus of the test is not on the speaker’s intent in
making the communication. Instead, it centers on
whether school officials could predict that such
expressive conduct would cause a disruption”
• Fact that police concluded that KP did not pose a
threat was not relevant to court’s analysis

Eighth Circuit’s True Threat Analysis
• Doe v. Pulaski Cnty. Spec. Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2002)
• Student wrote letter expressing desire to molest, rape and murder
female classmate. Letter was kept at home and shown to another
classmate who told the female classmate about the letter. Court
found that the letter was not protected because it qualified as a true
threat.
• “A true threat is a statement that a reasonable recipient would have
interpreted as a serious expression of an intent to harm or cause
injury to another. [Moreover] the speaker must have intentionally or
knowingly communicated the statement in question to someone
before he or she may be punished or disciplined for it.”

True Threat vs. Substantial Disruption
• S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R-7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771 (8th
Cir. 2012)
• Twin brothers created a blog to discuss, satirize and vent about events at school.
Posts by the brothers contained racist comments and sexually explicit and
degrading comments about particular female students identified by name. The
brothers were suspended and sued to enjoin the district. The lower court granted
the injunction thereby allowing the students to return to school. The Eighth Circuit
reversed because the speech was targeted at the school.
• Eighth Circuit had previously only applied the substantial disruption test
in cases where the speech in question involved a true threat
• Huntsville case expands the application of substantial disruption
analysis giving school districts more leeway in disciplining students for
off campus speech

2. Threat of Irreparable Harm
• Generally, an infringement of one’s First Amendment
Rights is sufficient to show irreparable harm.
• “Loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal
periods of time, unquestionably constitutes
irreparable harm” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347
(1976)
• In this case, however, the court found that KP’s
posting was not entitled to protection under the First
Amendment, and thus there was no First Amendment
violation

• Education is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution although in
state’s guaranteeing an education to all pupils within the state, a student may
have a property interest in that education which is protected by the Due Process
Clause. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
• Due Process requires that a state adhere to proscribed procedures if it is going
to deprive a student of an education. At a minimum, due process requires notice
and a hearing.
• While a student may have a property interest in an education, there is no
property interest in the choice of a particular school or curriculum.
• “A student who is removed from her regular public school, but it given access to
an alternative education program, has not been denied her entitlement to
public education.” Swindle v. Livingston Par. Sch. Bd., 655 F.3d 386 (5th Cir.
2011).
• “Student has no right to direct, control or determine her curriculum as part of the
entitlement to a public education.” Lindsey v. Matayoshi, 960 F. Supp.
2d 1159 (D. Haw. 2013)

3. Balance of Respective Harms
The court gave great weight to the district’s responsibility for
securing the safety of students and staff and maintaining order
within its schools and enforcing standards of student conduct
and imposing discipline when those standards are not met.

4. Public Interest
• Court noted that it might agree with the argument that the
district’s reaction to the post was unnecessarily harsh
• BUT….. acknowledged that it will not set aside the
disciplinary decisions of a school district just because it may
not agree with it.
• “It is not the role of federal courts to set aside decision of
school administrators which the court may view as lacking
basis in wisdom or compassion. … Those judgments are best
left to the voters who elect the school board.” Doe v. Pulaski
Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2002).

CASE STUDY:
Vilonia School Dist.
v.
MS and TS, as Parents of ARS

Case Study: Vilonia School Dist. v. MS
and TS, as Parents of ARS
• ARS was adopted at 2 months of age.
• Had already suffered horrific physical abuse.
• By the third grade he began to exhibit problem
behavior
• Behavior worsened by eighth grade and was placed
in an alternative learning environment.
Facts of the Case

• By ninth grade he had accumulated a
significant social and disciplinary history.
• He wrote text messages and other statements
threatening to harm himself.
• He was involved in several incidents that
were reported by the Vilonia Police
Department.
Case Study: Vilonia School Dist. v. MS and TS,
as Parents of ARS
Facts of the Case

• On December 4, 2017, the Vilonia Freshmen Academy called
the police department because ARS refused to go to class
• On December 15, 2017 the Academy again called the police
because ARS refused to go to class
• In early January 2018, the school district intended to place ARS
in an alternative learning environment
• Parents filed a due process complaint against the school district
on January 5, 2018.
• A stay put order prevented the district from removing ARS to an
alternative learning environment.
as Parents of ARS
Facts of the Case

• In early February 2018, the parents and
district settled the due process complaint.
• District agreed to hire consultants on
traumatic brain injury and made some
adjustments to ARS's schedule.
• No alternative learning environment.
• All regular classes except one that was a co-
taught inclusion class.
as Parents of ARS
Facts of the Case

• On the evening of March 1st, the school was
contacted by the parent of a student after the
parent had seen her child’s Snapchat account
that contained a picture of ARS that depicted
him holding what appeared to be a rifle with
the text:
“#ILOVEITWHENTHEYRUN”.
as Parents of ARS
Facts of the Case

• After accessing the Snapchat account the school
discovered other videos and photos:
• a video posted by ARS with a black screen and the
word “KILL” where ARS’s voice could be heard saying,
“I fight to kill, I don't fight to hurt people”
• an image of ARS with a belt around his neck with a
statement underneath that read, “ I almost f-ed up
real bad”
• After viewing these images and videos, the school became
concerned about the safety of ARS and everyone else in
the school.
as Parents of ARS
Facts of the Case

• On March 6, 2016 the school suspended
ARS.
• On March 27, 2018 the school filed suit
seeking a preliminary and permanent
injunction seeking to extend the suspension.
Case Study: Vilonia School Dist. v. MS and
TS, as Parents of ARS
Facts of the Case

Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The School District argued that there is no
requirement for it to exhaust his administrative
remedies under the IDEA under the
circumstances in this case.
as Parents of ARS

The court recognized that this exception to
exhaustion is narrow and should only be utilized
in the most egregious of circumstances—when
a school district believes that a child is truly
dangerous and an agreement cannot be worked
out regarding placement during the 10-day
removal period permitted by the IDEA.
as Parents of ARS

In determining whether a school district appropriately
seeks to remove a student who receives services under
an IEP, the court must determine two things:
1. Whether the school district has shown “that
maintaining the child in his or her current
educational placement is substantially likely to result
in injury either to himself or herself, or to others”;
and
2. Whether “it has done all that it reasonably can to
reduce the risk that the child will cause injury.”
as Parents of ARS

1. Substantially Likely to Result in Injury
• The court declined to label ARS a dangerous child
• Declined to determine ARS's intent in the Snapchat posts.
• Concluded that the evidence supported the objective
likelihood of injury to ARS or others if he remained in his
current placement.
• The problems he exhibited had manifested themselves in
ways that were potentially injurious to himself and others.
as Parents of ARS

2. Reasonable Steps to Reduce the Risk
• This second inquiry is necessary to ensure that school
districts fulfill their responsibility under the IDEA to make
available free appropriate public education for all disabled
students.
• The court held that the school district introduced very little
record evidence on this issue.
• Skeptical the parents argument that ARS had no access to
weapons therefore the only possible harm was self-harm.
as Parents of ARS

2. Reasonable Steps to Reduce the Risk
• The court relied on parents concession at resolution
conference that ARS likely needed to be placed in a more
restrictive environment and the school district agreed.
• Placed ARS on a homebound setting until ARS’s long-term
placement could be finalized through the IDEA administrative
process.
as Parents of ARS

3. Threat of Irreparable Harm
• The court based its decision on the risk of harm to ARS
and others that returning him to his then-current
educational placement could potentially result.
• Court held that the there was an unacceptable significant
potential of injury to ARS and those around him based on
his threats of self- harm and what were perceived as
threats to others.
• The court emphasized that its order was only temporary
and only until a hearing officer had the opportunity to
develop a full record and make a decision.
as Parents of ARS

4. Balance Equities and the Public Interest
• Significant public interest in maintaining
school safety
• Temporary limited injunction would not
disservice the public interest
• Only until the hearing officer could develop a
full record and make a decision.
as Parents of ARS

State Hearing Officer Relief Ordered
1. The District will immediately upon receipt of this order notify the
Parents and the Student that he will be receiving his special
education services at the previously agreed upon location as
contained in his amended IEP of October 25, 2017
2. The District will immediately upon receipt of this order, but no later
than April 30, 2018, schedule an IEP conference to be held at a
time and place agreeable to the Parents and the Department’s
Brain Injury Consultant. The purpose of the conference will be to
determine the most appropriate and least restrictive environment
in which to provide the Student’s special educational needs,
including any necessary supports and related services as dictated
by his qualifying disability of Traumatic Brain Injury.
as Parents of ARS

• Following the final decision parents filed a
motion for preliminary injunction.
• Parents requested the court to compel the
school district to immediately implement the
hearing officer’s final decision and order;
particularly, to return ARS to his previous
educational placement.
as Parents of ARS
Parents File for Preliminary Injunction

• The court must give due weight to the hearing
officer’s final decision
• Full record the hearing officer used to make the
determination was not before the court at the
preliminary injunction stage,
• Therefore, likelihood of success on the merits
weighed in favor of the parents.
as Parents of ARS

Threat of Irreparable Harm
• Hearing officer’s decision created an agreement between the
State and the Parents.
• School District’s failure to comply with the hearing officer’s
decision had prevented ARS from receiving any educational
services since he was suspended.
• Because the School District failed and continued to fail ARS
with a FAPE the court held that the threat of irreparable harm
factor weighed in favor of the parents.
as Parents of ARS

Public Interest
• The court held that the public interest lies in the
enforcement of the IDEA, the maintenance of
appropriate educational services for special education
students, and the protection of due process rights of
special education students and their parents.
• School district had not provided any form of education
for ARS since he was suspended from school
• School district violated orders by the state hearing
officer.
as Parents of ARS

Maintaining Balance of Equities
• The court held that because ARS had been irreparably
harmed due to the lack of educational services
• Resulting harm to ARS and his parents was greater than
the potential harm to the School District.
• Furthermore, based on the hearing officer’s determination
that ARS did not create a threat to the security in the
classroom court found that the balance of equities
weighed in favor of the current and future harms of ARS
and his parents.
as Parents of ARS

www.FridayFirm.com
400 West Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 I Little Rock, AR 72201
3425 North Futrall Dr. Suite 103 I Fayetteville, AR 72703
3350 South Pinnacle Hills Pkwy. Suite 301 I Rogers, AR 72758
Mergers & Acquisitions
ELLEN OWENS SMITH
Labor & Employment
Partner
(501) 370-1578
esmith@fridayfirm.com
. SMITH

www.FridayFirm.com
400 West Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 I Little Rock, AR 72201
3425 North Futrall Dr. Suite 103 I Fayetteville, AR 72703
3350 South Pinnacle Hills Pkwy. Suite 301 I Rogers, AR 72758
Mergers & Acquisitions
Khayyam M. Eddings
Labor & Employment
Partner
(501) 370-1417
keddings@fridayfirm.com
. SMITH

School Threats on Social Media

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

School Threats on Social Media

Editor's Notes