— In Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied the Prince William County School Board immunity in a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by campus educators. The case arose out of injuries sustained by a victimized special needs student in high school. A fellow-student with special needs with “a known, troubled record involving harmful, sexual, and abusive behavior… transferred from another high school” with a notice that he “would pose a danger to other students.” Even so, however, the parents alleged that the fellow-student “was placed in several (special needs) classes …sexually assaulted (the victim) by touching her breasts and legs, kissing her, and trying to take her outside of the school building to perform other sexual acts on her.” Many of these acts occurred in the classroom and many of “the assaults occurred in open view of other people.” The parents of the victimized student asserted “a single count of gross negligence against the School Board Employees in their official capacities only.” The members of the school board argued that a lawsuit “against them in their official capacities amounted to a suit against the School Board (and that) the School Board is entitled to sovereign immunity.” The lower court agreed, dismissing the lawsuit. On appeal the appellate court reversed, sending the case to trial to “to determine whether the alleged actions taken by the (school) amounted to gross negligence.” The appellate court made three points. First, under Virginia law “Virginia school boards should be considered municipal corporations rather than arms of the state…. not entitled to a claim of sovereign immunity.” Second, ““Official capacity” suits are effectively suits against the entity for whom the individual works and are separate and distinct from “individual capacity” suits where the individual is sued for the actions he took while acting within the scope of his employment.” Third, a school board “should be immune for acts of simple negligence, but should not be immune for acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Immunity cannot be asserted when gross negligence, rather than simple negligence, is alleged.” At trial, the parents must prove that school officials “acting in their official capacity, committed gross negligence because they were aware that a violent student had been accepted into the intellectual disability class, as well as evidence that the abuse (the victim) suffered occurred in plain view of the teacher in the classroom.” Drasovean v. Walts
— In Arizona, a study released by state auditors revealed areas in which school safety was lacking. “State auditors said not a single one of the schools they reviewed had fully implemented their emergency operations plans, a failure that a new report says could affect their ability to protect students in emergencies.”
— In Michigan, the Michigan legislature has approved a series of new polices to implement stronger school safety requirements and mental health assessments. The legislation also addresses the response of schools during an emergency. House Bill 5659 and House Bill 5660 “(codify) a School Safety and Mental Health Commission (to) specifically examine and make recommendations to improve school safety measures and mental health support.” “Under House Bills 4095 and 4096, all schools in Michigan would be required to adopt uniform terminology for emergency response starting in the 2026-2027 school year.”
— In Texas, the legislature has introduced has introduced House Bill (HB) 62, that authorizes the use of remote-operated aerial drones to enhance school security. “According to the bill text, “Requirements … can also be met via at least one remote-human-operated aerial device … deployed or contracted by the district at each district campus providing less lethal interdiction capability by means of air-based irritant delivery or other mechanisms for every 200 students enrolled at the district.””