There are two issues here:
First, suspension is not legally depriving the student of an education. It is punishment. The courts have more than answered this question and have not to-date, disallowed the suspension of a student on constitutional grounds.
I'm not really addressing the motive behind the suspension. Were punishment to have taken the form of breaking a student's bones, this student would be no less infirmed than if the objective were less lofty. In this case, the infirmity is specifically the product of a teaching opportunity being withheld, irrespective of the supporting rationale.
Otherwise, somewhat obtusely, New York courts determined some years ago that any seat in a classroom was sufficient to meet the constitutional obligation imposed upon the state in this respect. A parental law suit against the state predicated on the illiteracy of graduates had been dismissed on those specific grounds. If you are comfortable with this, you are quite right in your rebuttal which I would want to reject for separate reasons of my own.
The fact that a student has a right to an education (free or otherwise) is not a bar to discipline. The state can offer the constitutionally protected education with other options and the student is free to exercise that right on his/her own.
If I understand your statement correctly, I am sure I agree with you here. Discipline is not in question other than to the extent it may intrude upon a legal right. Options are fine.
As to the crime, computer hacking and facilitating the crime of computer hacking, burglary and destruction of private property are only a few of the crimes that this student is facilitating.
I apologize if I misunderstand the original inquiry, but my belief has been that the Web site can't be presumed to facilitate the commission of any crime in any respect that would be dissimilar to the use of a telephone in a contract murder. I realize that we must be mindful of somewhat of a judicial monarchy, but there are implicit dangers when resorting to the body of law as one gigantic chinese menu.
The website was designed for a specific purpose and unless this kid has more computer knowledge than I do (and I seriously doubt that) then his website can only gain access to the ACL list of the schools computer system by the installation of a trojan or an administrator password which belongs to the school system.
When this case can be made succinctly, then the discussion will need to evolve differently. I think I am correct when I say that nothing is yet evident that supports your projection as more than an attempt to mind read. This doesn't mean that you may not be ahead of the curve -- it means only that the imposition of law is inseparable from responsbilities that you and I might be inclined to dismiss while chatting over a cup of coffee.
If you have read anything in this froum regarding education and the constitution you'll see my stand on the relevant issues. As far back as 1965 I was espousing constitutional issues in the schools. Contrary to the atmosphere of the day.
I'm sorry, but I just stumbled upon this discussion and am completely ignorant of what you may have been saying in the past. I can see that I'm not even proficient enough just yet to use the site correctly, and I'll apologize for that, too.
However, in this instance, there is no constitutional protection for the crimes being committed and no constitutional guarantee for the student NOT to be disciplined should it come to that.
No crime ever has the benefit of contitutional protection, and I would agree that we should be able to discuss 'discipline' generally without getting into constitutional conflicts.
The cases you are citing have nothing to do with a school's rights and responsibilities. In fact, the school, acting as loco parentis, has more rights and responsibilities than the parent when the child is in their care.
Neither the state nor its schools have any rights at all, despite the way the subject matter is (carelessly) handled. The responsibility for education in New York is strictly a constitutional imposition upon the state and the means for meeting that responsibility is statuory. Common law addresses neither. I do understand the role that courts have awarded themselves, and with a unified court system, the failures are dramatically compounded. I mention this last point only because I don't know how to avoid it, but I'm satisfied just leaving it behind a a question to be resolved elsewhere. I am familiar with the school's 'parental' role, but I would insist that while it does imply levels of authority, it is a serious mistake to extrapolate the availability of rights of any kind.
One of those rights is to suspend certain constitutional rights such as search and seizure. A parent is not a government entity and thus does not have such suspension power.
Nonsense! The authority (not a right) to require a search prior to being admitted into a school building is certainly legitimate. A student invoking his right to refuse a search in the absence of probable cause is no less legitimate, however he has no inherent right of entry; it is not improper to deny him access were he to do so. Rights, however, are never subject to administrative distraint, and the state is not relieved of providing education for a student so doing. Civil rights, which I will define as those legislative enactments providing for 'rights' certainly can be suspended, but only by authority which itself, is the product of legislation. The 4th Amendment addresses an 'unalienable' constitutional right, one that predates the country itself and is beyond the lawful reach of any government intervention. This is not a particularly difficult argument to defend, however I do concede that it will be vigorously discounted. I don't often detect much public or legal respect for the inalienability of constitutional rights at any level.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I do not agree that tutoring should be an option. The FIRST option is and should always be the student taking responsibility for learning.
The school authorities are free to determine what options are available to them. They are not free to assign any student a responsibility for learning -- I'm not even sure I understand what that means. This is not to say that the wise student won't take such responsibility on his own initiative or that teachers won't encourage him to do so.
In this case, if this student is suspended, they are responsible for the learning they will miss. And for such a short period, I doubt any court is going to order the added expense to taxpayers for the private tutoring of a problem child.
I don't believe it ever makes sense to think in terms of reassigning the state's responsibility for public education to the the student, himself. Tempting, I am sure, but not particularly within the realm of a legitimate possibility. Courts have been known to order states to spend money, but I think you will find that law enforcement authority does not properly extend beyond enforcing the law. In this particular example, school administrators are the only ones with authority to determine how their funds will be spent and their obligations will be met, and to the extent decisions pass constitutional muster, their decision is final, as it should be.