From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mifflin Co. Sch. Dist. v. Stewart

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 23, 1986
94 Pa. Commw. 313 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1986)

Summary

In Stewart, the school district failed to provide any written notification of suspension, and in Mullane, unlike the pending action, the district failed to provide written notification before taking any action.

Summary of this case from Killion v. Franklin Regional School Dist.

Opinion

Argued November 14, 1985

January 23, 1986.

Schools — Suspension of student — Moot questions — Graduation ceremony — Property rights — Expulsion — Written notice.

1. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania may decide a case although it is now moot when the matter involves an important public question which would otherwise repeatedly escape review. [315]

2. A student has no property right in attendance at his graduation ceremony. [315]

3. One cannot be expelled from a school when he has already graduated. [315]

4. Regulations require that public school authorities give written notice of the reasons for a suspension before an informal hearing is conducted which leads to a suspension beyond the summary suspension authority of the school principal, and in the absence of such notice a suspension imposed as a result of such hearing is invalid. [316]

Argued November 14, 1985, before Judges CRAIG and PALLADINO, and Senior Judge KALISH, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1640 C.D. 1984, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County in case of Kenneth W. Stewart, II, a Minor, by Kenneth W. Stewart and Jean C. Stewart, his natural parents and guardians v. Mifflin County School District, No. 729 of 1984.

Student suspended by Mifflin County School District. Complaint in equity filed in Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County. Student to be reinstated and permitted to attend graduation. SEARER, J. School district appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Norman L. Levin, Brugler Levin, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

Stephen S. Russell, Chief Staff Counsel, for Amicus Curiae, Pennsylvania School Boards Association.


Mifflin County School District appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County which reinstated a suspended high school student and directed that he be permitted to attend his high school graduation exercises. We affirm.

On May 29, 1984, Lewistown High School authorities suspended Kenneth W. Stewart, II, then a senior at the high school, because he had been involved in a fight on school property with other students earlier that morning. School Principal James Schnell suspended Stewart for three days and scheduled an informal hearing for May 31, the third day of Stewart's suspension. After the hearing, the school authorities decided to suspend Stewart for an additional four school days, thus barring him from commencement ceremonies on June 5, and to schedule a formal hearing before a panel of school board members on the day following commencement.

Stewart's parents then petitioned the Common Pleas Court of Mifflin County to reinstate Stewart in his class and to permit him to be graduated with his class on June 5. Judge SEARER granted the relief requested. The trial court found as a matter of fact that the district did not comply with the procedural requirements of 22 Pa. Code § 12.8.

The Issue of Mootness

Although the matter involved in this appeal is now certainly moot, the court will decide this appeal because it involves an important public question which could otherwise escape review repeatedly. Colonial Gardens Nursing Home, Inc. v. Bachman, 473 Pa. 56, 373 A.2d 748 (1977).

The Property Right Issue

This case appears to pose the question of whether or not a student has a property right as to attendance at his graduation ceremony. Even if this court were to agree with the Stewarts' premise (citing Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)) that there is a property right with respect to receiving an education, so that a student could not be excluded from public school without due process, our holding is that a graduation ceremony is not within the scope of any property right which might exist in that respect, for the reason that commencement ceremonies are only symbolic of the educational end result, not an essential component of it. Here, the district conceded that Stewart had completed the necessary requirements in order to obtain his high school diploma and that Stewart would be graduated, even though he would not receive his diploma with his classmates at the scheduled public ceremony. Hence, the suspension effected no deprivation as to education.

The Issue of Expulsion

The district questions the trial court's conclusion that the aggregate suspension, which went beyond the graduation date, was the equivalent of an expulsion because there could be no return to school after the suspension period. In Finding No. 15, the judge stated:

(E) Suspension beyond the school year is tantamount to expulsion. . . .

That statement overlooks the fact that, with a departing senior involved in this case, there could be no expulsion because the student was in fact graduated. One is not expelled if one is made an alumnus.

The Procedural Requirements

Here the school authorities directed that Stewart serve two consecutive suspensions totaling seven schooldays. The first suspension, lasting three school-days, was properly within the summary suspension authority of the high school principal under provisions of 22 Pa. Code § 12.6(b)(1)(i). The validity of that suspension is not questioned.

However, for a suspension of more than three school days, the school authorities must provide student and parents the "opportunity for an informal hearing consistent with requirements" set forth in 22 Pa. Code § 12.8(c) (relating to hearings). The trial judge's Finding No. 15 states, in part, that:

15. The Mifflin County School Board failed to abide by due process in that:

(A) No notification was given in writing of the reason for the suspension to the student or his parents.

. . . .

Testimony by Stewart and his parents supports that finding. Although the record shows that the school authorities orally notified the parents, the district also admits that Stewart's parents did not receive the required written notification of the reasons for the suspension before the informal hearing took place.

Therefore, the four-day additional suspension, embracing the date of Stewart's graduation, was not valid because the district did not adhere to the requirements of 22 Pa. Code § 12.8(c) (2)(i), which requires that the notice be in writing.

ORDER

NOW, January 23, 1986, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County dated June 5, 1984, is affirmed.


Summaries of

Mifflin Co. Sch. Dist. v. Stewart

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 23, 1986
94 Pa. Commw. 313 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1986)

In Stewart, the school district failed to provide any written notification of suspension, and in Mullane, unlike the pending action, the district failed to provide written notification before taking any action.

Summary of this case from Killion v. Franklin Regional School Dist.

In Mifflin County School Dist. v. Stewart, 94 Pa Cmwlth 313, 503 A.2d 1012 (1986), the commonwealth court of Pennsylvania specifically held that "a graduation ceremony is not within the scope of any property right which might exist [under the due process clause], for the reason that commencement ceremonies are only symbolic of the educational end result, not an essential component of it."

Summary of this case from Swany v. San Ramon Valley Unified School Dist.

invoking public-importance exception regarding question whether student had property right to participate in graduation ceremony, even though passage of time had mooted the issue

Summary of this case from Landlord Serv. Bureau v. City of Pittsburgh & Council of City of Pittsburgh

In Mifflin County School District v. Stewart by Stewart, 94 Pa.Cmwlth. 313, 503 A.2d 1012 (1986), this Court considered whether a school district failed to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education when the school district initially suspended a graduating student for three days, conducted an informal hearing on the third day, and then extended the extension another four days without providing the student with a formal hearing.

Summary of this case from Driscoll v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Phila.

involving issue of whether expelled student had property right to attend graduation ceremony

Summary of this case from Salvatore v. Dallastown Area Sch. Dist.

explaining that student had no property right in graduation ceremony because such ceremony is only symbolic of education's end result

Summary of this case from Boston v. Bu. of Sp. Educ. App., No

In Mifflin County Sch. Dist. v. Stewart, 503 A.2d 1012 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1986), a high school senior was suspended from school and barred from participating in the commencement ceremonies after he was involved in a fight on school property.

Summary of this case from Flynn-Scarcella v. Pocono Mountain

In Mifflin, we briefly addressed the issue of mootness and determined that the appeal involved an important public question that could otherwise repeatedly escape review.

Summary of this case from Flynn-Scarcella v. Pocono Mountain
Case details for

Mifflin Co. Sch. Dist. v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:Mifflin County School District, Appellant v. Kenneth W. Stewart, II, a…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 23, 1986

Citations

94 Pa. Commw. 313 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1986)
503 A.2d 1012

Citing Cases

Dissinger v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist.

The fact that a suspension impacts a graduation ceremony does not mean the underlying suspension is beyond…

Nieshe v. Concrete Sch. Dist

Similarly, a California District Court held that a plaintiff who received a college diploma 11 days late and…