Lago vista school district

The revenue per student figure offers a helpful way to compare districts, since total revenues will vary greatly between large and small districts. Funds from the federal government, which can include money for Title 1 schools, vocational and tech education, bilingual education, and the Child Nutrition Act, and more.

Funds from the state government, which can include money for staff improvement, special education, gifted and talented, bilingual, and vocational education, school lunch, transportation, and employee benefits, and more.

This reflects how much money this district spent on a per-student basis, compared to the state average. This figure can help you compare districts to one another. Spending on preK instruction, including teacher salaries and materials for regular, special, and vocational programs during the school year and summer, and more.

Spending on administrative support for preK education, including professional development, counselors, transportation, materials, and more. Other spending, including community services, adult education, and spending on things like buildings and roads. School List List. Parenting Topics. Lago Vista Independent School District. District summary ratings. Top 5 schools in this district. These are some of the top-rated public schools in Lago Vista Independent School District based on a variety of measures , including academic performance and equity.

Find out more about GreatSchools ratings. College Success Award. These are some of the best public high schools in Lago vista independent school district at preparing students for success in college.

The College Success Award recognizes schools that do an exemplary job getting students to enroll in and stick with college, including those that excel at serving students from low-income families. District student progress. Is this district offering opportunity for all its students, or leaving some kids behind? Successful districts are working to close the achievement gap.

Advanced courses. Rigorous courses can help students prepare for and get into college, including coursework in STEM subjects. Find out more. All rights reserved. Lago Vista High School. Campus Home District Home. Jaima Johnson - grand champion pie and blue ribbon blanket Carmen Ridgeway - red ribbon brownies Riley Greenless - blue ribbon photography Mayce Ornelas - blue ribbon mixed media coffee table Emma Clark - blue ribbon photography Reese Cromwell - blue ribbon strawberry preserves.

January 7, Follow lvhsvikings. LV High School Mission Statement The mission of Lago Vista High School is to use the four years allotted to teach, motivate, and challenge each student to rise to the highest level of academic excellence possible in a premiere learning environment.

All graduates will leave our school with the ability to live and work as compassionate citizens and mature, effective adults. We are committed to sending into the world individuals who use problem-solving skills to impact their community in a responsible manner. Gebser did not report the relationship to school officials, testifying that while she realized Waldrop's conduct was improper, she was uncertain how to react and she wanted to continue having him as a teacher. In October , the parents of two other students complained to the high school principal about Waldrop's comments in class.

The principal arranged a meeting, at which, according to the principal, Waldrop indicated that he did not believe he had made offensive remarks but apologized to the parents and said it would not happen again.

The principal also advised Waldrop to be careful about his classroom comments and told the school guidance counselor about the meeting, but he did not report the parents' complaint to Lago Vista's superintendent, who was the district's Title IX coordinator. A couple of months later, in January , a police officer discovered Waldrop and Gebser engaging in sexual intercourse and arrested Waldrop.

Lago Vista terminated his employment, and subsequently, the Texas Education Agency revoked his teaching license. During this time, the district had not promulgated or distributed an official grievance procedure for lodging sexual harassment complaints; nor had it issued a formal antiharassment policy.

Gebser and her mother filed suit against Lago Vista and Waldrop in state court in November , raising claims against the school district under Title IX, Rev.

They sought compensatory and punitive damages from both defendants. After the case was removed, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Lago Vista on all claims, and remanded the allegations against Waldrop to state court.

In rejecting the Title IX claim against the school district, the court reasoned that the statute "was enacted to counter policies of discrimination Here, the court determined, the parents' complaint to the principal concerning Waldrop's comments in class was the only one Lago Vista had received about Waldrop, and that evidence was inadequate to raise a genuine issue on whether the school district had actual or constructive notice that Waldrop was involved in a sexual relationship with a student.

Petitioners appealed only on the Title IX claim. Lago Vista Independent School Dist. San Elizario Independent School Dist. Leija, F. The court first declined to impose strict liability on school districts for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student, reiterating its conclusion in Leija that strict liability is inconsistent with "the Title IX contract. The court then determined that Lago Vista could not be liable on the basis of constructive notice, finding that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that a school official should have known about Waldrop's relationship with Gebser.

Finally, the court refused to in-. The court concluded its analysis by reaffirming its holding in Rosa H. The Fifth Circuit's analysis represents one of the varying approaches adopted by the Courts of Appeals in assessing a school district's liability under Title IX for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student.

See Smith v. Metropolitan School Dist. Perry Twp. Iona College, F. Claiborne County, F. Omaha Public School Dist. We granted certiorari to address the issue, U. Title IX provides in pertinent part: "No person The express statutory means of enforcement is administrative: The statute directs federal agencies that distribute education funding to establish requirements to effectuate the nondiscrimination mandate, and permits the agencies to enforce those requirements through "any We subsequently established in Franklin v.

In Franklin, a high school student alleged that a teacher had sexually abused her on repeated occasions and that teachers and school administrators knew about the harassment but took no action, even to the point of dissuading her from initiating charges.

See id. The lower courts dismissed Franklin's complaint against the school district on the ground that the implied right of action under Title IX, as a categorical matter, does not encompass recovery in damages.

We reversed the lower courts' blanket rule, concluding that Title IX supports a private action for damages, at least "in a case such as this, in which intentional discrimination is alleged.

Franklin thereby establishes that a school district can be held liable in damages in cases involving a teacher's sexual harassment of a student; the decision, however, does not purport to define the contours of that liability. We face that issue squarely in this case.

Petitioners, joined by the United States as amicus curiae, would invoke standards used by the Courts of Appeals in Title VII cases involving a supervisor's sexual harassment of an employee in the workplace. In support of that approach, they point to a passage in Franklin in which we stated: "Unquestionably, Title IX placed on the Gwinnett County Public Schools the duty not to discriminate on the basis of sex, and 'when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate because of the subordinate's sex, that supervisor "discriminate[sJ" on the basis of sex.

Bank, FSB v. Vinson, U. We believe the same rule should apply when a teacher sexually harasses and abuses a student. Petitioners and the United States submit that, in light of Franklin's comparison of teacher-student harassment with supervisor-employee harassment, agency principles should likewise apply in Title IX actions.

Specifically, they advance two possible standards under which Lago Vista would be liable for Waldrop's conduct. First, relying on a "Policy Guidance" issued by the Department of Education, they would hold a school district liable in damages under Title IX where a teacher is "'aided in carrying out the sexual harassment of students by his or her position of authority with the institution,'" irrespective of whether school district officials had any knowledge of the harassment and irrespective of their response upon becoming aware.

Brief for Petitioners 36 quoting Dept. That rule is an expression of respondeat superior liability, i. Second, petitioners and the United States submit that a school district should at a minimum be liable for damages based on a theory of constructive notice, i.

Both standards would allow a damages recovery in a broader range of situations than the rule adopted by the. Court of Appeals, which hinges on actual knowledge by a school official with authority to end the harassment.

Whether educational institutions can be said to violate Title IX based solely on principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice was not resolved by Franklin's citation of Meritor. That reference to Meritor was made with regard to the general proposition that sexual harassment can constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX, see Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. In fact, the school district's liability in Franklin did not necessarily turn on principles of imputed liability or constructive notice, as there was evidence that school officials knew about the harassment but took no action to stop it.

See U. Moreover, Meritor's rationale for concluding that agency principles guide the liability inquiry under Title VII rests on an aspect of that statute not found in Title IX:. Title VII, in which the prohibition against employment discrimination runs against "an employer," 42 U.

See Meritor, supra, at Title IX contains no comparable reference to an educational institution's "agents," and so does not expressly call for application of agency principles. In this case, moreover, petitioners seek not just to establish a Title IX violation but to recover damages based on theories of respondeat superior and constructive notice. It is that aspect of their action, in our view, that is most critical to resolving the case. Congress therefore has directly addressed the subject of damages relief under Title VII and has set out the particular situations in which damages are available as well as the maximum amounts recoverable.

With respect to Title IX, however, the private right of action is judicially. In addition, although the general presumption that courts can award any appropriate relief in an established cause of action, e. Hood, U. We made no effort in Franklin to delimit the circumstances in which a damages remedy should lie. Because the private right of action under Title IX is judicially implied, we have a measure of latitude to shape a sensible remedial scheme that best comports with the statute.

See, e. Employers Ins. Sandberg, U. That endeavor inherently entails a degree of speculation, since it addresses an issue on which Congress has not specifically spoken. Gilbertson, U. To guide the analysis, we generally examine the relevant statute to ensure that we do not fashion the scope of an implied right in a manner at odds with the statutory structure and purpose. See Musick, Peeler, U. Those considerations, we think, are pertinent not only to the scope of the implied right, but also to the scope of the available remedies.

See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. Lewis, U. We suggested as much in Franklin, where we recognized "the general rule that all appropriate relief is available in an action brought to vindicate a federal right," but indicated that the rule must be reconciled with congressional purpose.

The "general rule," that is, "yields where necessary to carry out the intent of Congress or to avoid frustrating the purposes of the statute involved. S, at "[A] private remedy should not be implied if it would frustrate the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme". Applying those principles here, we conclude that it would "frustrate the purposes" of Title IX to permit a damages recovery against a school district for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student based on principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice, i.

Because Congress did not expressly create a private right of action under Title IX, the statutory text does not shed light on Congress' intent with respect to the scope of available remedies. Franklin, U. Instead, "we attempt to infer how the [] Congress would have addressed the issue had the Central Bank of Denver, N.

First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. Bell, U. As a general matter, it does not appear that Congress contemplated unlimited recovery in damages against a funding recipient where the recipient is unaware of discrimination in its programs. When Title IX was enacted in , the principal civil rights statutes containing an express right of action did not provide for recovery of monetary damages at all, instead allowing only injunctive and equitable relief.

See It was not until that Congress made damages available under Title VII, and even then, Congress carefully limited the amount recoverable in any individual case, calibrating the maximum recovery to the size of the employer. See 42 U. Adopting petitioners' position would amount, then, to allowing unlimited recovery of damages under Title IX where Congress has not spoken on the subject of either the right or the remedy, and in the face of evidence that when Congress expressly considered both in Title VII it restricted the amount of damages available.

Congress enacted Title IX in with two principal objectives in mind: "[T]o avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices" and "to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. The two statutes operate in the same manner, conditioning an offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate, in what amounts essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of funds.

See Guardians, U. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, U. That contractual framework distinguishes Title IX from Title VII, which is framed in terms not of a condition but of an outright prohibition. Title VII applies to all employers without regard to federal funding and aims broadly to "eradicat[e] discrimination throughout the economy. Title VII, moreover, seeks to "make persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination.

Thus, whereas Title VII aims centrally to compensate victims of discrimination, Title IX focuses more on "protecting" individuals from discriminatory practices carried out by recipients of federal funds. Cannon, supra, at That might explain why, when the Court first recognized the implied right under Title IX in Cannon, the opinion referred to injunctive or equitable relief in a private action, see U.

Title IX's contractual nature has implications for our construction of the scope of available remedies. When Congress attaches conditions to the award of federal funds under its spending power, U. See Franklin, supra, at ; Guardians, supra, at White, J. Our central concern in that regard is with ensuring that "the receiving entity of federal funds [has] notice that it will be liable for a monetary award.

Justice White's opinion announcing the Court's judgment in Guardians Assn. Civil Servo Comm'n of New York City, for instance, concluded that the relief in an action under Title VI alleging unintentional discrimination should be prospective only, because where discrimination is unintentional, "it is surely not obvious that the grantee was aware that it was administering the program in violation of the [condition].

We confront similar concerns here. If a school district's liability for a teacher's sexual harassment rests on principles of constructive notice or respondeat superior, it will likewise be the case that the recipient of funds was unaware of the discrimination. It is sensible to as-. See Rosa H. We think it unlikely that it further agreed to suffer liability whenever its employees discriminate on the basis of sex". Most significantly, Title IX contains important clues that Congress did not intend to allow recovery in damages where liability rests solely on principles of vicarious liability or constructive notice.

Title IX's express means of enforcement-by administrative agencies-operates on an assumption of actual notice to officials of the funding recipient. The statute entitles agencies who disburse education funding to enforce their rules implementing the nondiscrimination mandate through proceedings to suspend or terminate funding or through "other means authorized by law.

Significantly, however, an agency may not initiate enforcement proceedings until it "has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. In the event of a violation, a funding recipient may be required to take "such remedial action as [is] deem[ed] necessary to overcome the effects of [the] discrimination.

While agencies have conditioned continued funding on providing equitable relief to the victim, see, e. Gwinnett County School District, O. In Franklin, for instance, the Department of Education found a violation of Title IX but determined that the school district came into compliance by virtue of the offending teacher's resignation and the district's institution of a grievance procedure for sexual harassment complaints.

Presumably, a central purpose of requiring notice of the violation "to the appropriate person" and an opportunity for voluntary compliance before administrative enforcement proceedings can commence is to avoid diverting education funding from beneficial uses where a recipient was unaware of discrimination in its programs and is willing to institute prompt corrective measures.

The scope of private damages relief proposed by petitioners is at odds with that basic objective. When a teacher's sexual harassment is imputed to a school district or when a school district is deemed to have "constructively" known of the teacher's harassment, by assumption the district had no actual knowledge of the teacher's conduct. Nor, of course, did the district have an opportunity to take action to end the harassment or to limit further harassment. It would be unsound, we think, for a statute's express system of enforcement to require notice to the recipient and an opportunity to come into voluntary compliance while a judicially implied system of enforcement permits substantial liability without regard to the recipient's knowledge or its corrective actions upon receiving notice.

Manor Drug Stores, U.