AN ANALYSIS OF APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS DETERMINING THE AUTHORITY OF BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND THEIR AGENTS TO ESTABLISH RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CONDUCT AND CONTROL OF PUPILS, 1960-1983 (DUE PROCESS, STRICT, CONSTRUCTION)

It was the purpose of this study to determine the status of the authority of school boards and their agents to control the conduct of pupils. This was accomplished by an investigation of appellate court decisions occurring from 1960 to 1983. All data, including court decisions, books and articles were subjected to content analysis. From this data, "principles of law" outlining the constitutional procedural and substantive due process rights of students were discovered and listed.;Another finding establishes that the civil rights of students have been expanded as a result of appellate court decisions occurring during the span of this study. Landmark decisions such as Gault and Tinker, granting due process and the protection of the Constitution for students, and the increased use of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, have helped to open the courts to civil rights actions by students.;A third finding indicates that appellate court decisions occurring after Rodriguez in 1973, have continued to follow the "strict construction" posture of the United States Supreme Court contributing to a more conservative stance in the appellate courts toward the expansion of student rights, in the late 1970's and early 1980's.;Finally, Hogan's theory of a modern trend in decisional law after 1950, which he characterized as "education under the supervision of the courts," is supported by the court cases and judicial decisions found for this study. This modern trend was characterized by an attitude of the courts supporting involvement in school decisions and operations to insure that constitutional minima were met.;One finding indicates that students are entitled to constitutional procedural and substantive due process rights. Further, appellate court decisions expanding the procedural and substantive due process rights of students have restricted the authority of school boards and their agents to control the conduct of pupils.