WGU D017 SCHOOL LAW EXAM PREP WITH
SOLUTIONS UPDATED STUDY GUIDE
1. A school district implements a policy requiring all students to wear GPS-enabled ID badges that
track their location on campus during school hours. A group of parents challenges the policy as a
violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Which legal standard should the court apply to evaluate
the constitutionality of this policy?
A. The reasonable suspicion standard, as applied in New Jersey v. T.L.O., because the tracking is a search
conducted by school officials.
B. The special needs exception, balancing the district's interest in safety against students' reduced expectation of
privacy, as articulated in Vernonia v. Acton.
C. The strict scrutiny standard, because continuous GPS tracking implicates a fundamental right to privacy.
D. The probable cause standard, because GPS tracking is equivalent to a physical trespass as in United States v.
Jones.
Answer: B
Rationale: In Vernonia v. Acton, the Supreme Court applied the special needs exception to drug testing of
student athletes, finding that students have reduced privacy expectations in school. Continuous GPS
tracking for safety similarly requires balancing the district's interest against privacy. Strict scrutiny is
not applied because there is no fundamental right to location privacy in schools, and probable cause is
not required under the special needs doctrine.
2. A student with a specific learning disability under IDEA has been suspended for a total of 15
school days in the current academic year for repeated violations of the code of conduct. The school
now proposes a 10-day suspension for a new, unrelated infraction. Under IDEA and its
implementing regulations, what is the school's obligation regarding manifestation determination
and educational services?
A. No manifestation determination is required because the total suspensions do not exceed 10 consecutive days,
and the school must provide services only after 10 cumulative days.
B. A manifestation determination must be conducted because the cumulative suspensions exceed 10 school days
in a year, and services must be provided during the suspension.
C. No manifestation determination is required because the new suspension is for a different behavior, but
services must be provided after 10 cumulative days.
D. A manifestation determination must be conducted only if the suspension exceeds 10 consecutive days;
otherwise, no services are required.
Answer: B
Rationale: Under 34 CFR §300.530, a manifestation determination is required when a change in
placement occurs, which includes suspensions totaling more than 10 school days in a school year. Since
the student has already been suspended 15 days, the additional 10-day suspension constitutes a change
in placement, triggering the need for a manifestation determination. The school must also provide
services during the suspension to enable progress toward IEP goals.
Page 1
,3. A public university receives a complaint that a faculty member has created a hostile
environment by repeatedly making offensive remarks about a student's religion in class
discussions. The university investigates and finds the remarks were not targeted at the student but
were general comments about religious beliefs. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which standard should the university apply to determine whether a hostile environment exists?
A. Whether the remarks were objectively offensive and pervasive enough to deny the student access to
educational benefits.
B. Whether the remarks were made with discriminatory intent and resulted in a tangible detriment to the student.
C. Whether the remarks were severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and the university had notice and was
deliberately indifferent.
D. Whether the remarks violated the university's speech code, regardless of offensiveness.
Answer: C
Rationale: Under Title VI, a hostile environment claim requires showing that harassment was severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that the recipient (university) had actual notice and was
deliberately indifferent (Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1999). This standard applies to
peer harassment and, by analogy, to faculty-student harassment under Title VI. Intent is not required
under Title VI for hostile environment, but the conduct must be sufficiently serious to deny access.
4. A school district's policy prohibits students from wearing any clothing with words or symbols,
including political, religious, or commercial messages. A student wears a T-shirt with a slogan
supporting a political candidate and is disciplined. The student sues, claiming a violation of First
Amendment free speech rights. What is the most likely outcome under current Supreme Court
precedent?
A. The policy is likely unconstitutional because it is viewpoint-neutral but still restricts core political speech,
which receives heightened protection under Tinker.
B. The policy is likely constitutional because it is a content-neutral restriction on the time, place, and manner of
speech, permissible in a non-public forum.
C. The policy is likely unconstitutional because it is a content-based restriction that does not satisfy strict
scrutiny, as it bans all expressive messages.
D. The policy is likely constitutional because schools may prohibit any speech that is not related to the
curriculum, as per Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
Answer: C
Rationale: Under Tinker v. Des Moines, students retain free speech rights unless the speech causes a
substantial disruption. A blanket ban on all expressive messages is a content-based restriction on the
basis of the message's viewpoint-neutral application. Strict scrutiny applies to content-based restrictions
in a traditional public forum (schools are limited public forums). The policy is not narrowly tailored to a
compelling interest, as less restrictive alternatives exist (e.g., banning only disruptive messages).
5. A high school student creates a fake social media profile impersonating a teacher, posting
derogatory comments. The school disciplines the student for cyberbullying under its code of
conduct. The student argues the speech occurred off-campus and is protected. Under the recent
Supreme Court decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), which factor is most
critical in determining whether the school may discipline the student?
A. Whether the speech was made on or off campus using school-provided technology.
Page 2
,B. Whether the speech caused a substantial disruption or was likely to cause a substantial disruption at school.
C. Whether the speech targeted a school employee and was made with malicious intent.
D. Whether the speech was vulgar or lewd, regardless of disruption.
Answer: B
Rationale: In Mahanoy, the Court held that off-campus speech is generally protected but schools may
discipline if the speech causes or is likely to cause a substantial disruption of school operations or
invades the rights of others. The key factor is disruption, not the location of the speech or the use of
school technology. The Court rejected a categorical rule for off-campus speech, emphasizing a
fact-specific analysis.
6. A school district receives a request from a non-custodial parent for access to their child's
educational records. The custodial parent objects, citing a court order that limits the non-custodial
parent's rights. Under FERPA and its regulations, what is the school's obligation?
A. The school must deny access to the non-custodial parent because the custodial parent has sole authority over
records.
B. The school must provide access to the non-custodial parent unless the school has a copy of the court order
specifically revoking access rights.
C. The school must conduct a hearing to determine the best interests of the child before deciding.
D. The school may deny access if the custodial parent provides a written objection, regardless of a court order.
Answer: B
Rationale: Under FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g) and 34 CFR §99.4, either parent, custodial or
non-custodial, has access to the student's records unless the school has been provided with evidence of a
court order or state law that revokes the non-custodial parent's rights. The school cannot rely solely on
the custodial parent's objection; it must have legal documentation. A hearing is not required under
FERPA for this determination.
7. A public elementary school has a policy of conducting random, suspicionless drug testing of all
students in grades 6-12 who participate in extracurricular activities. A parent of a 6th-grade
student who wants to join the chess club challenges the policy as unconstitutional. Under the
Supreme Court's decisions in Vernonia v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, what is the likely
outcome?
A. The policy is likely unconstitutional as applied to 6th graders because the Court has not extended random
testing to students below high school.
B. The policy is likely constitutional because participation in extracurricular activities is voluntary and the
school has a special need for safety.
C. The policy is likely unconstitutional because it includes non-athletic activities, which have a lower safety risk
than sports.
D. The policy is likely constitutional only if the school demonstrates a widespread drug problem among
extracurricular participants.
Answer: B
Rationale: In Earls (2002), the Court upheld random drug testing for all students participating in
competitive extracurricular activities, including non-athletic ones, based on the special needs doctrine.
The Court emphasized that the policy was reasonable because participation was voluntary and the
intrusion was minimal. The age of the student (6th grade) does not change the analysis, as the Court
applied the same standard to middle and high school students. A demonstrated drug problem is not
Page 3
, required.
8. A school district is sued under Title IX for failing to respond adequately to a student's report of
sexual assault by another student. The district argues that it had no actual knowledge because the
report was made to a teacher who did not inform a Title IX coordinator. Under the Title IX
regulations effective August 2020, what standard of knowledge triggers the district's obligation to
respond?
A. Actual knowledge by any employee of the district, regardless of whether that employee has authority to
institute corrective measures.
B. Actual knowledge by the Title IX coordinator or an official with authority to institute corrective measures.
C. Constructive knowledge if the district reasonably should have known of the harassment through a reasonable
investigation.
D. Actual knowledge by any teacher or staff member, as long as the harassment is severe and pervasive.
Answer: B
Rationale: The 2020 Title IX regulations (34 CFR §106.30) define actual knowledge as notice to the Title
IX coordinator or any official with authority to institute corrective measures. Knowledge by a teacher
who is not a Title IX coordinator does not constitute actual knowledge unless the teacher is designated
as an official with authority. Constructive knowledge is not sufficient. This standard limits the district's
liability to cases where officials with authority had direct notice.
9. A school district proposes to use a student's photograph and name in a promotional video
without parental consent. The student is over 18 and has not signed a release. The district claims it
has the right under FERPA's directory information exception. Which of the following best
describes the district's obligation under FERPA?
A. The district may use the photo and name without consent because they are directory information, provided
the district has given annual notice and allowed opt-out.
B. The district may use the photo and name only if the student has not opted out, and for a student over 18, the
opt-out right belongs to the student.
C. The district may not use the photo or name without written consent because promotional videos are not an
educational purpose.
D. The district may use the photo and name only if the video is for an official school publication and the student
is not identified by name.
Answer: B
Rationale: Under FERPA (34 CFR §99.37), schools may disclose directory information (including photos
and names) without consent if they have given annual notice and allowed parents (or eligible students
over 18) a reasonable opportunity to opt out. For a student over 18, the right to opt out transfers to the
student. The district must have complied with the notice and opt-out procedures. Promotional videos are
generally considered directory information use, not a separate educational purpose.
Page 4
SOLUTIONS UPDATED STUDY GUIDE
1. A school district implements a policy requiring all students to wear GPS-enabled ID badges that
track their location on campus during school hours. A group of parents challenges the policy as a
violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Which legal standard should the court apply to evaluate
the constitutionality of this policy?
A. The reasonable suspicion standard, as applied in New Jersey v. T.L.O., because the tracking is a search
conducted by school officials.
B. The special needs exception, balancing the district's interest in safety against students' reduced expectation of
privacy, as articulated in Vernonia v. Acton.
C. The strict scrutiny standard, because continuous GPS tracking implicates a fundamental right to privacy.
D. The probable cause standard, because GPS tracking is equivalent to a physical trespass as in United States v.
Jones.
Answer: B
Rationale: In Vernonia v. Acton, the Supreme Court applied the special needs exception to drug testing of
student athletes, finding that students have reduced privacy expectations in school. Continuous GPS
tracking for safety similarly requires balancing the district's interest against privacy. Strict scrutiny is
not applied because there is no fundamental right to location privacy in schools, and probable cause is
not required under the special needs doctrine.
2. A student with a specific learning disability under IDEA has been suspended for a total of 15
school days in the current academic year for repeated violations of the code of conduct. The school
now proposes a 10-day suspension for a new, unrelated infraction. Under IDEA and its
implementing regulations, what is the school's obligation regarding manifestation determination
and educational services?
A. No manifestation determination is required because the total suspensions do not exceed 10 consecutive days,
and the school must provide services only after 10 cumulative days.
B. A manifestation determination must be conducted because the cumulative suspensions exceed 10 school days
in a year, and services must be provided during the suspension.
C. No manifestation determination is required because the new suspension is for a different behavior, but
services must be provided after 10 cumulative days.
D. A manifestation determination must be conducted only if the suspension exceeds 10 consecutive days;
otherwise, no services are required.
Answer: B
Rationale: Under 34 CFR §300.530, a manifestation determination is required when a change in
placement occurs, which includes suspensions totaling more than 10 school days in a school year. Since
the student has already been suspended 15 days, the additional 10-day suspension constitutes a change
in placement, triggering the need for a manifestation determination. The school must also provide
services during the suspension to enable progress toward IEP goals.
Page 1
,3. A public university receives a complaint that a faculty member has created a hostile
environment by repeatedly making offensive remarks about a student's religion in class
discussions. The university investigates and finds the remarks were not targeted at the student but
were general comments about religious beliefs. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which standard should the university apply to determine whether a hostile environment exists?
A. Whether the remarks were objectively offensive and pervasive enough to deny the student access to
educational benefits.
B. Whether the remarks were made with discriminatory intent and resulted in a tangible detriment to the student.
C. Whether the remarks were severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and the university had notice and was
deliberately indifferent.
D. Whether the remarks violated the university's speech code, regardless of offensiveness.
Answer: C
Rationale: Under Title VI, a hostile environment claim requires showing that harassment was severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that the recipient (university) had actual notice and was
deliberately indifferent (Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1999). This standard applies to
peer harassment and, by analogy, to faculty-student harassment under Title VI. Intent is not required
under Title VI for hostile environment, but the conduct must be sufficiently serious to deny access.
4. A school district's policy prohibits students from wearing any clothing with words or symbols,
including political, religious, or commercial messages. A student wears a T-shirt with a slogan
supporting a political candidate and is disciplined. The student sues, claiming a violation of First
Amendment free speech rights. What is the most likely outcome under current Supreme Court
precedent?
A. The policy is likely unconstitutional because it is viewpoint-neutral but still restricts core political speech,
which receives heightened protection under Tinker.
B. The policy is likely constitutional because it is a content-neutral restriction on the time, place, and manner of
speech, permissible in a non-public forum.
C. The policy is likely unconstitutional because it is a content-based restriction that does not satisfy strict
scrutiny, as it bans all expressive messages.
D. The policy is likely constitutional because schools may prohibit any speech that is not related to the
curriculum, as per Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
Answer: C
Rationale: Under Tinker v. Des Moines, students retain free speech rights unless the speech causes a
substantial disruption. A blanket ban on all expressive messages is a content-based restriction on the
basis of the message's viewpoint-neutral application. Strict scrutiny applies to content-based restrictions
in a traditional public forum (schools are limited public forums). The policy is not narrowly tailored to a
compelling interest, as less restrictive alternatives exist (e.g., banning only disruptive messages).
5. A high school student creates a fake social media profile impersonating a teacher, posting
derogatory comments. The school disciplines the student for cyberbullying under its code of
conduct. The student argues the speech occurred off-campus and is protected. Under the recent
Supreme Court decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), which factor is most
critical in determining whether the school may discipline the student?
A. Whether the speech was made on or off campus using school-provided technology.
Page 2
,B. Whether the speech caused a substantial disruption or was likely to cause a substantial disruption at school.
C. Whether the speech targeted a school employee and was made with malicious intent.
D. Whether the speech was vulgar or lewd, regardless of disruption.
Answer: B
Rationale: In Mahanoy, the Court held that off-campus speech is generally protected but schools may
discipline if the speech causes or is likely to cause a substantial disruption of school operations or
invades the rights of others. The key factor is disruption, not the location of the speech or the use of
school technology. The Court rejected a categorical rule for off-campus speech, emphasizing a
fact-specific analysis.
6. A school district receives a request from a non-custodial parent for access to their child's
educational records. The custodial parent objects, citing a court order that limits the non-custodial
parent's rights. Under FERPA and its regulations, what is the school's obligation?
A. The school must deny access to the non-custodial parent because the custodial parent has sole authority over
records.
B. The school must provide access to the non-custodial parent unless the school has a copy of the court order
specifically revoking access rights.
C. The school must conduct a hearing to determine the best interests of the child before deciding.
D. The school may deny access if the custodial parent provides a written objection, regardless of a court order.
Answer: B
Rationale: Under FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g) and 34 CFR §99.4, either parent, custodial or
non-custodial, has access to the student's records unless the school has been provided with evidence of a
court order or state law that revokes the non-custodial parent's rights. The school cannot rely solely on
the custodial parent's objection; it must have legal documentation. A hearing is not required under
FERPA for this determination.
7. A public elementary school has a policy of conducting random, suspicionless drug testing of all
students in grades 6-12 who participate in extracurricular activities. A parent of a 6th-grade
student who wants to join the chess club challenges the policy as unconstitutional. Under the
Supreme Court's decisions in Vernonia v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, what is the likely
outcome?
A. The policy is likely unconstitutional as applied to 6th graders because the Court has not extended random
testing to students below high school.
B. The policy is likely constitutional because participation in extracurricular activities is voluntary and the
school has a special need for safety.
C. The policy is likely unconstitutional because it includes non-athletic activities, which have a lower safety risk
than sports.
D. The policy is likely constitutional only if the school demonstrates a widespread drug problem among
extracurricular participants.
Answer: B
Rationale: In Earls (2002), the Court upheld random drug testing for all students participating in
competitive extracurricular activities, including non-athletic ones, based on the special needs doctrine.
The Court emphasized that the policy was reasonable because participation was voluntary and the
intrusion was minimal. The age of the student (6th grade) does not change the analysis, as the Court
applied the same standard to middle and high school students. A demonstrated drug problem is not
Page 3
, required.
8. A school district is sued under Title IX for failing to respond adequately to a student's report of
sexual assault by another student. The district argues that it had no actual knowledge because the
report was made to a teacher who did not inform a Title IX coordinator. Under the Title IX
regulations effective August 2020, what standard of knowledge triggers the district's obligation to
respond?
A. Actual knowledge by any employee of the district, regardless of whether that employee has authority to
institute corrective measures.
B. Actual knowledge by the Title IX coordinator or an official with authority to institute corrective measures.
C. Constructive knowledge if the district reasonably should have known of the harassment through a reasonable
investigation.
D. Actual knowledge by any teacher or staff member, as long as the harassment is severe and pervasive.
Answer: B
Rationale: The 2020 Title IX regulations (34 CFR §106.30) define actual knowledge as notice to the Title
IX coordinator or any official with authority to institute corrective measures. Knowledge by a teacher
who is not a Title IX coordinator does not constitute actual knowledge unless the teacher is designated
as an official with authority. Constructive knowledge is not sufficient. This standard limits the district's
liability to cases where officials with authority had direct notice.
9. A school district proposes to use a student's photograph and name in a promotional video
without parental consent. The student is over 18 and has not signed a release. The district claims it
has the right under FERPA's directory information exception. Which of the following best
describes the district's obligation under FERPA?
A. The district may use the photo and name without consent because they are directory information, provided
the district has given annual notice and allowed opt-out.
B. The district may use the photo and name only if the student has not opted out, and for a student over 18, the
opt-out right belongs to the student.
C. The district may not use the photo or name without written consent because promotional videos are not an
educational purpose.
D. The district may use the photo and name only if the video is for an official school publication and the student
is not identified by name.
Answer: B
Rationale: Under FERPA (34 CFR §99.37), schools may disclose directory information (including photos
and names) without consent if they have given annual notice and allowed parents (or eligible students
over 18) a reasonable opportunity to opt out. For a student over 18, the right to opt out transfers to the
student. The district must have complied with the notice and opt-out procedures. Promotional videos are
generally considered directory information use, not a separate educational purpose.
Page 4
