Pennsylvania court dismisses school administrator’s suit for improper demotion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

According to The Morning Call, Lehigh County Judge J. Brian Johnson has dismissed former Allentown School District (ASD) administrator Jim Dotterer’s suit challenging his demotion from assistant principal to a teaching position. Judge Johnson ruled that the proper place to challenge the demotion was before the School Board, not the court.

Dotterer’s demotion resulted in a loss of 20% of his $100,500 annual salary and some of his retirement benefits. His suit sought a temporary restraining order to keep his demotion from becoming final, and a court order requiring the school district to pay back wages and restore his retirement benefits.

The judge ruled that the county court has no authority to decide the case. He rejected Dotterer’s claim that the suit was his only option because the school district dragged its feet. Johnson said the fact that Dotterer retired from the school district before the school board could vote on his demotion does not take the issue out of the Board’s jurisdiction. “If this court were to allow this case to continue … it would establish a precedent that any school district employee in Pennsylvania who is demoted after the age of 55 may immediately retire and circumvent the state School Code,” the judge said.

Dotterer had been an Allen High School assistant principal since 2003 under Principal Keith Falko. In October 2010, Falko was transferred to the central office, and former Central Elementary Principal Michael Rodriguez took Falko’s place at Allen HS. Rodriguez gave Dotterer a poor evaluation in June 2011, while Dotterer was on medical leave for shoulder surgery, court records show, and ASD Superintendent Russ Mayo demoted him on July 1, 2011.

Dotterer requested a hearing, but the hearing was delayed as district officials and Dotterer’s attorney attempted to negotiate a settlement. In the meantime, Dotterer was receiving a teacher’s salary and remained on medical leave following a second surgery. He requested a second demotion hearing in July 2012, and the hearing was set for September 2012. But before the hearing happened, Dotterer retired and withdrew his request for the hearing.

Nonetheless, the School Board in September 2012 officially approved his demotion to teacher and accepted his resignation. Dotterer argued there was no reason for the School Board to hold the demotion hearing.

Judge Johnson said the delay in resolving Dotterer’s case through the proper channels is inexplicable, but at the same time irrelevant. Under state law, school administrators can appeal school district employment decisions to the School Board and then the state secretary of education and the commonwealth court.

Johnson, therefore, concluded: “There is nothing in the evidence or the case law that requires a hearing to be held within a certain amount of time or indicates that, if scheduling of the hearing takes too long, the plaintiff is entitled to circumvent the entire statutory process and file an action with the Court of Common Pleas.” Mayo and ASD Solicitor John Freund said they are satisfied with the decision.

Source: The Morning Call, 3/11/13, By Peter Hall

[Editor's Note: In April 2011, Legal Clips summarized an article in the Oklahoman, which reported that Governor Mary Fallin had signed into law a bill that allowed school boards to dismiss under-performing career teachers without going through a legal appeals process. Then-House Bill 1380 removed the “trial de novo,” or fresh-new trial, portion of due process laws for public school teachers. Under that law, a superintendent could recommend the firing of a career teacher to the local school board.]

Michigan district adopts policy banning unauthorized firearms in its schools

A local news affiliate, WZZM13.com, reports that members of the board of the Rockford Public Schools has approved a new “weapons-free school zone” policy for the district, which would prohibit any unauthorized firearms on campuses. The new Rockford policy, approved at a recent school board meeting, does not allow any weapons on school property, unless the person carrying the weapon is a police officer or other law enforcement official, or a person authorized by the superintendent to bring it onto school grounds for educational or security purposes.

Under current Michigan law, individuals are not allowed to carry concealed weapons onto school grounds. Individuals who have a concealed pistol license in the state are allowed to carry firearms, but must do so openly. Following the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, some have called for changes, including allowing teachers and others to carry concealed weapons in schools.

Representatives from MichiganOpenCarry.org, an organization that advocates for the open carry of handguns, contend that the Rockford school board is ill-informed, and that the district could face a lawsuit challenging the new policy. Rockford school officials say their intent is to ensure the safety of their students, and that they will risk the lawsuit.

Source:  WZZM13.com, 3/12/13, By Matt Campbell

[Editor's Note: Since the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy, state legislatures and local school boards all over the country have been wrestling with the issue of arming school personnel. Shortly after the Newtown incident, in December 2012, Legal Clips summarized articles from both NPR (National Public Radio) and the Associated Press (AP) in The Oregonian, which reported on the school shooting in Connecticut and the state of security in the nation's schools. The Legal Clips summary of the NPR piece includes links to the audio version of the "All Things Considered" segment covering the matter, and to the televised interview of NSBA's General Counsel, Francisco Negrón, on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," in which he offered his perspective of how school boards across the nation develop and implement emergency plans.

As additional examples, in March 2013, Legal Clips summarized an AP report, which identified that South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard had signed a bill allowing the state’s school districts to arm teachers and other personnel with guns. The bill’s main sponsor, Representative Scott Craig, said that he had received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.

In December 2012, Legal Clips summarized an AP article in the Times-Picayune, which reported that in the community’s lone school in Harrold, Texas, some of the teachers were carrying concealed weapons. In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff’s office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know – and trust – one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.]

Pennsylvania district threatened with suit for refusal to recognize gay-straight alliance club

As reported on Fox43.com, following a 5-4 vote by the local school board to refuse to recognize a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) club at Chambersburg Area Senior High School, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) and Equality Pennsylvania (EP) sent a letter to the Chambersburg Area School District (CASD) officials saying the Board is in violation of the federal Equal Access Act (EAA). ACLU-PA and EP are threatening a lawsuit if the Board fails to reverse its vote.

“If they provide any additional support to other clubs in the school, which they do, then they have to present the same opportunities to anyone requesting that same chance,” said Ted Martin, EP’s executive director. “The school board has had an awful long time to consider this. This is not a new issue. This is something they’ve been considering for several months.”

Faced with suit, New Jersey district repeals 24/7 student conduct policy

As reported in phillyBurbs.com, the Delran Board of Education decided to throw out the school district’s 24/7 rule from the student code of conduct. The decision came after parents legally challenged the policy when school officials imposed punishments that barred some students from going on a senior trip to Florida after they were caught at an underage drinking party in December 2012.

Even though an administrative judge sided with the district earlier this month, the litigation raised questions about the legality of a senior trip agreement signed by the students and the inequities of the around-the-clock code-of-conduct policy. “The more this board considered the language, the more it recognized that there was too much uncertainty in the enforcement of a 24/7 policy,” School Board President Ingar Blosfelds said. “In addition, this board believes that discipline for off-campus conduct is best handled by the student’s parents and also law enforcement.”

The board also did not want to incur the expense of defending the policy in court, especially given the lengthy legal battles that the Haddonfield School District and the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District endured when they adopted similar policies in an attempt to curb student alcohol and drug use. In January 2013, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear arguments on the Ramapo case and let stand the ruling from the lower court, which sided with the state Department of Education’s decision that the district had overstepped its authority. Haddonfield followed suit and got rid of its policy in February 2013.

For those who think the school board should stand its ground, officials told a group of parents during a special meeting early last week that they should be prepared to pay the costs of more lawsuits. “Get your checkbooks out. Haddonfield is still in litigation several years later,” Board member Sheri Sheeran-Garvey said.

Although the administrative law judge’s ruling came down in the district’s favor, board members still did not feel comfortable about how it would be enforced, given that 26 of the students at the party would be punished because they were seniors and signed the agreement, and 10 others would not. “The more this board considered the incident, it recognized the inherent unfairness and inequity that could follow,” Blosfelds said. “In other words, one student could be involved in off-campus conduct and not be disciplined, and another could be disciplined.”

New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Michael Yaple said code-of-conduct policies that go beyond school hours are legal as long as they are reasonably necessary for the student’s physical or emotional safety, security and well-being, and for reasons relating to the safety, security and well-being of other students, staff or school grounds. “There have been court rulings that date back to the 1970s that allow school districts to impose punishments for off-campus behavior, but the key is it has to be connected to the school environment,” Yaple said. He said the Ramapo policy would have been fine if it had not been so broad.

But late last week, the story took a new turn. The decision in the Delran case was only a recommendation that must be signed off by state Department of Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf. Cerf recently ruled that the case should not have been decided in a summary decision and bounced it back to the Office of Administrative Law for “the development of a factual record and a determination as to whether the board’s decision to impose discipline on (the students) in connection with the Dec. 8, 2012, incident was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.”

“It’s moving forward,” Wolf said. “We will be presenting a case to the administrative law judge.” While no hearing date has been scheduled, Wolf said he continues to believe that these around-the-clock conduct policies will continue to be challenged in court.

Source:  phillyBurbs.com, 3/12/13, By Todd McHale

[Editor's Note: In February 2013, Legal Clips summarized an article in the Courier-Post, which reported that the Haddonfield School Board had voted to eliminate the “24/7” student-conduct policy at Haddonfield Memorial High School. However, the lawsuits challenging the policy continued. The Board’s enforcement of the policy had been suspended since August 2012 after an appellate court ruled against a Bergen County school district, Ramapo Indian Hills Regional, with a similar policy.]

States adopting laws requiring third graders to pass reading test or face retention

The Washington Post reports that a growing number of states are drawing a hard line in elementary school, requiring children to pass a reading test in third grade or be held back from fourth grade. Thirteen states last year adopted laws that require schools to identify, intervene and, in many cases, retain students who fail a reading proficiency test by the end of third grade. Lawmakers in several other states and the District of Columbia are debating similar measures. Not every state requires retention; some allow schools to promote struggling readers to fourth grade as long as they are given intensive help.

Advocates of the new tough-love policies say social promotion – advancing students based on age and not academic achievement – results in high-schoolers who can barely read, let alone land a job or attend college. Literacy problems are best addressed at an early age, they say. Critics say the policies reflect an accountability movement that has gone haywire, creating high-stakes tests for 8-year-olds. The child, not the school, bears the brunt of the problem, they say, pointing to research that shows that the academic benefits of repeating a grade fade with time while the stigma can haunt children into adulthood.

“This is completely unsettling. I’m concerned about a number of those legislative initiatives,” said Shane Jimerson, a University of California at Santa Barbara professor who has studied retention for 20 years, and found that, from a child’s perspective, being held back is as stressful as losing a parent. “This is deleterious to hundreds of thousands of students,” he said. “But children don’t have a voice. If you were doing this to any group that had representation, it would not be happening.”

Third grade has become a flashpoint in primary education because it is the stage when children are no longer learning to read but are reading to learn, educators say. If children have not mastered reading by third grade, they will find it hard to handle increasingly complex lessons in science, social studies and even math.

In some places, retention has morphed from an educational issue into a political fight. Tony Bennett, Indiana schools superintendent, lost his elected position in November to Glenda Ritz, a teacher who ran because she was angered by Bennett’s third-grade retention policy. Bennett, meanwhile, became state education commissioner in Florida, where the third-grade retention policy has served as a model for other states.

Literacy is a struggle for many U.S. children, with 33% of all fourth-graders nationwide reading below basic levels in 2011, according to federal data. For minorities, the picture was worse: Half of black and Hispanic fourth-graders were below basic in reading. Children who do not read proficiently by third grade are four times more likely to drop out of school than those who read well, according to a recent study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

A matter of debate for more than a century, decisions about whether to hold back a child usually have been made by teachers and principals in consultation with parents. But in an accountability era ushered in by the 2002 No Child Left Behind law, the new retention policies offer little wiggle room. Decisions are based on test scores, not the subjective judgment of teachers and administrators. Parents have little recourse. And individual students bear the impact, as opposed to an entire school being sanctioned for failing to perform.

The new approach began in earnest in 2002 in Florida under then-Governor Jeb Bush, who promoted an education strategy that also featured private-school vouchers, data-based assessments for schools and teachers, charter schools and online learning.

Mary Laura Bragg, who ran Florida’s third-grade retention program under Bush, said it forced elementary schools to get serious about literacy. Principals moved their best teachers to kindergarten and first and second grades, she said. Schools sought state funds for diagnostic reading tests and other help.  A study that tracked third-graders retained in Florida found that they showed significant academic gains in the first two years, but those effects faded over time. Still, fewer students have been retained each year since the policy took effect, which suggests the emphasis on early reading is having an impact.

In Ohio, Governor John Kasich signed into law the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, which says that starting this year, third-graders who fail a statewide reading test will not be permitted to enter fourth grade. Similar laws are rolling out in Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Tennessee and Colorado.

Most policies require that schools evaluate children as early as kindergarten and notify parents if their child is below grade level. Schools are required to create a plan for each student and provide intensive reading tutoring, summer reading programs or other help. Most states make exceptions to the retention policy for English language learners, students with disabilities, or children who have been previously retained.

Source: The Washington Post, 3/10/13, by Lyndsey Layton

[Editor's Note: In July 2012, Legal Clips summarized an article in the Detroit Free Press, which reported that the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan had filed a class action suit, which could have national implications, asserting a child’s fundamental right to read, the first suit of its kind. The suit charged that state agencies, as well as those overseeing Highland Park schools, failed to take the effective steps to ensure students are reading at grade level, as set forth by state law and the Michigan Constitution.]

ETS Commission calls for new tests to focus on student assessment to improve classroom instruction

As reported in Education Week, emerging technology and research on learning have the potential to dramatically improve assessments, if educators and policymakers take a more balanced approach to using them. That is the conclusion of two years of analysis by the Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education, a panel of top education research and policy experts that was launched in 2011 with initial funding from the Educational Testing Service (ETS).

In a report that was set for release recently, the Gordon Commission lays out a 10-year plan for states to develop systems of assessment that go beyond identifying student achievement for accountability purposes and toward improving classroom instruction and giving greater insight into how children learn.

Joanne Weiss, the chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan but not part of the Commission, said the report “shines a needed spotlight on the future of assessment, pushing us to make the next stages of this vital work coherent, coordinated, and sustainable.” “When we get assessment right, it helps families, teachers, schools, and systems tailor learning to students’ needs and make wise decisions,” Weiss said in a statement. “Today, we stand on the cusp of the biggest advances in assessment in a generation, with assessments that are more useful and less intrusive, thanks in part to advances in education technology.”

Both the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), and the Smarter Balanced Assessment consortium are building computer-based testing systems accompanied by benchmarking tools to help guide instruction. However, the Gordon Commission says the common-core tests planned for roll-out in the academic year 2014-15, “while significant, will be far from what is ultimately needed for either accountability or classroom instructional-improvement purposes.” The common-assessment consortia “are trying hard to reform what we currently do, and the commission has been thinking about revolutionary change,” said Edmund W. Gordon, the Commission’s chairman and a professor emeritus of psychology at Yale University and the Teachers College at Columbia University.

“Assessment has been almost hung up on a commitment to help account for status and to use those assessments of prior achievements to hold individuals and systems accountable,” Gordon said in an interview. By contrast, the Commission argues that future educators should use systems of aligned assessments, which would inform instruction through a balance of fine-grained classroom diagnostic tests, challenging tasks and projects, and even analytic tools to sift through background data produced by students in the classroom or online.

Such tools would be used in conjunction with larger-grained accountability tests, which are administered less frequently and tend to have too long a turnaround time to be used to help teachers. For example, middle school students learning to subtract mixed numbers might use several different methods and substeps to solve different types of problems within that unit, and a teacher might give multiple formative tests on the subject. Formative tests are diagnostic tools that measure a student’s growth in an academic area over time. In contrast, summative tests provide a snapshot of student achievement at a specific point and are more commonly used for accountability.

“It makes a lot of sense to check along the way to see where your kids are doing well and getting hung up,” said Robert J. Mislevy, a member of the Commission and the chairman in measurement and statistics at the Princeton, N.J.-based ETS, which has helped design the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the SAT, Advanced Placement tests, and other well-known exams. But in an accountability test, he said, a state education chief may need only a representative sample of students to be given a handful of mixed-number-subtraction problems to get a picture of how well the state’s students understand that area. “To have 20 or 30 problems for every 5th grader to take—that’s a waste of time,” Mislevy said.

Roy Pea, a professor of education and learning sciences at Stanford University, who was not part of the Commission, agreed that tests developed for accountability purposes “largely ignore” the need for formative diagnostic tests used to improve instruction. “There are boundless benefits to endorsing [the Commission's] proposal of transforming assessment to render it for education so as to inform and guide daily progress in learning and development, supporting education’s primary learning and teaching processes with richer pedagogies informed by the learning sciences,” Pea said in a statement.

The Commission calls for states to create a permanent “council on educational assessments,” modeled on the Education Commission of the States and supported with a small tax on sales of tests. This council would, among other tasks, evaluate the effectiveness of the common-core assessments; help set performance-level benchmarks for cross-state tests; provide professional development for teachers and the public on how to use different tests; and develop and study policies and protocols to protect students’ privacy while allowing the use of assessment data for research.

Source: Education Week, 3/13/2013, by Sarah D. Sparks

[Editor's Note: In March 2013, Legal Clips summarized an article in Education Week, which reported on a study by the EPE Research Center that found that teachers feel unprepared to teach the curriculum for the common core assessments, especially to disadvantaged students, even as the Common Core State Standards are being put into practice across most of the country. The study by the EPE Research Center, an arm of Editorial Projects in Education, the publisher of Education Week, found deep wells of concern among teachers about their readiness to meet the challenges posed by the common core in English/language arts and mathematics.

Also in March 2013, Legal Clips summarized another article in Education Week, which reported that even though 34 states and the District of Columbia have NCLB waivers in hand, many of them are still negotiating with the U.S. Department of Education over their teacher-evaluation systems – a crucial component if they want to keep their new-found flexibility. More than six months after waiver recipients turned in their guidelines to ED, only 12 waiver states have gotten the green light for their evaluation systems. ED officials expect to start sending more approval letters soon, along with notices on which plans need more work.]

Supreme Court hears arguments in Voting Rights Act case affecting board member elections

Education Week reports that a major provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that affects hundreds of school districts, especially in the South, recently went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The historic law requires states and other jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Act to obtain federal approval for any change in voting practices or procedures. For school systems, the law covers periodic alterations to voting districts for school board members or changes in the makeup of a board, such as switching from at-large to single-member districts. The 2006 renewal of the law by Congress extended for 25 years Section 5′s special treatment of states and jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination. The renewal was challenged by Shelby County, Alabama, which argues that the law is an infringement on state sovereignty.

“Section 5 has done its work. People are registering and voting,” Bert W. Rein, the Washington lawyer representing the county, said during the Feb. 27 oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder (Case No. 12-960). ”But if you think there is discrimination, you have to examine that nationwide.”

Rein found sympathy among the court’s conservatives. Justice Scalia said the Voting Rights Act has become a “perpetuation of racial entitlements.” “I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution,” he said. Justice Kennedy said the law’s preclearance requirements may have run their course, just as certain other prominent U.S. laws had. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 for westward expansion, the Morrill Act of 1862 establishing land-grant colleges, and the post-World War II Marshall Plan to aid European recovery “were very good, too,” he said, “but times change.”

Members of the court’s liberal bloc defended the 2006 extension of the law. “This is a question of renewing a statute that by and large has worked,” said Justice Breyer. Justice Kagan said that Congress in 2006 compiled a 15,000-page legislative record and decided that although conditions had changed, “the problem was still evident enough that the act should continue.” “It’s hard to see how Congress could have developed a better and more thorough legislative record than it did,” she said.

Under Section 5, covered jurisdictions such as school districts must gain “preclearance” approval from either the U.S. Department of Justice or a special three-judge federal district court in Washington, D.C. for voting changes. The jurisdiction must show that the change does not deny the right to vote on the basis of race, color, or language-minority status.

Nine states are covered as a whole—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia—as are certain jurisdictions in several other states.

Thanks in large part to Section 5, minority voters in small towns and rural areas “are finally having a voice on school boards” and other local bodies, U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the court in a brief.

In a 2010 report that is not part of the present case, the National School Boards Association said 80.7% of school board members nationwide were white, 12.3% were African-American, and 3.1% were Hispanic. While the study did not distinguish elected from appointed board members in those groups, some 95% of board members are elected, the NSBA said.

The statute allows a covered jurisdiction to seek an exemption—called a “bailout”—from Section 5′s preclearance requirements if it has met certain conditions, chiefly a 10-year record of nondiscrimination in voting. The Obama Administration submitted a list of covered jurisdictions that have won such exemptions, including several dozen school districts. One of those jurisdictions was Merced County, California, which last year received a bailout from preclearance requirements for itself, its 22 school districts, and other local agencies.

“After … decades of compliance with Section 5, extensive work by the county to oversee compliance by independent cities and agencies that it does not control, the expenditure of more than $1 million in legal fees, … and more than two years of investigations by the United States Department of Justice,” says a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the county, “the county of Merced finally achieved its goal of bailing out of Section 5 coverage.” “That effort finally relieved the county of the stigma of being covered by a statute designed to target historic discriminators.”

Source:  Education Week, 3/6/10, by Mark Walsh

[Editors Note: In January 2013, Legal Clips summarized an article from The Dallas Morning News, which reported that Manny Benavidez, an unsuccessful school board candidate, had filed suit against Irving Independent School District (IISD) and its board alleging that the district’s new voting system is designed to disenfranchise Hispanics. The suit comes a year after IISD overhauled its electoral process in an effort to prevent just such a lawsuit. Benavidez’s legal complaint calls that overhaul “a sham that would continue to keep Latino-backed representatives off the school board,” which governs a majority-Hispanic school district but has no Hispanic trustees against Irving Independent School District (IISD) and its board alleging that the district’s new voting system is designed to disenfranchise Hispanics.]

Connecticut federal court rules cheerleading not a sport under Title IX

ABCNews.com reports that a U.S. District Court judge in Connecticut has again ruled that competitive cheerleading, despite some upgrades, is not a sport, and says Quinnipiac University must remain under an injunction that requires the school to keep its women’s volleyball team. Several volleyball players and their coach successfully sued the university in 2009 after it announced it would eliminate volleyball for budgetary reasons and replace it with a competitive cheer squad. U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill ruled in their favor, saying that competitive cheerleading had not developed enough to be considered a college sport for Title IX purposes, and he ordered the school to keep the volleyball team and come up with a compliance plan.

In his latest ruling, Underhill said that the additions of the cheer team, now called “acrobatics and tumbling”, and a women’s rugby team do not give the university’s female students competitive opportunities equal to those offered to male students and he denied the school’s request to lift his previous injunction.

Quinnipiac spokeswoman Lynn Bushnell issued a recent statement saying the school is disappointed with the ruling, but “remains committed to its long standing plans to continue expanding opportunities in women’s athletics.”

While the judge noted that acrobatics and tumbling have made improvements, including more cohesive rules of competition and a better championship format, he said two organizations compete to oversee the activity and it is not recognized by the NCAA as a sport or even an emerging sport. ”And without that recognition, acro lacks what every other varsity men’s team sponsored by Quinnipiac enjoys: the chance to participate in an NCAA-sponsored championship,” the judge wrote.

Underhill found that the rugby team lacked quality competition because only four other schools offer women’s rugby as a varsity sport, which meant the school’s team spent most of its inaugural season playing club teams.

Attorney Jon Orleans, who argued the case for the volleyball players along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said it was significant that the judge went beyond just counting male and female athletes at the school. “The court went on to analyze the quality of competition offered to men’s teams and women’s teams, and found that women at Quinnipiac were not, on the whole, provided with competitive opportunities equivalent to those provided to men,” he said. “This is one of very few, if not the only, court decisions to address this particular aspect of Title IX’s requirements.”

Source: ABCNews.com, 3/6/2013, By Pat Eaton-Robb

[Editor's Note:  In October 2012, Legal Clips summarized an article from The Associated Press (AP) reported in The Republic, which reported that a federal judge in Indiana had signed a consent decree between the Franklin County Community School Corp., former girls basketball coach Amber Parker, and nine of its opponent schools which called for girls’ and boys’ games to be scheduled equally by the 2016-17 school year, with interim steps until then. According to Parker’s attorney, William Groth, the agreement to schedule girls’ and boys’ basketball games equally on Friday and Saturday nights had set a legal precedent for the entire state of Indiana.

In December 2011, Legal Clips summarized an article from the Daily World, which reported that the parents of two female student-athletes had filed suit against the St. Landry Parish School System alleging Title IX violations. Paul and Alanna Barbour’s suit charged the district with sex discrimination under Title IX, by not allowing their daughters to participate in softball and volleyball. Shelbi and Erin Barbour then attended Opelousas High School where they had participated in multiple extracurricular activities.]

Michigan district defend students’ journalistic freedom while some parents complain

The Ticker reports that although a recent article in the Traverse City Central High School’s (TCCHS) Black & Gold newspaper has upset some parents, school district officials say the controversy presents a learning opportunity for students who worked on the paper. The article in question appeared in the paper’s satire section called The Leek.

Under the headline “Grinding: A guide for future reference,” the satirical article mocked the district’s recent crackdown on lewd dancing at school events. The article gave step-by-step instructions on how to perform “grinding,” or sexually suggestive dance moves. Accompanying photographs showed two students acting out each step.

A number of parents complained about the article, arguing the photos and subject matter were “highly inappropriate.” Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS) Superintendent Steve Cousins reviewed the complaints and agreed with the parents’ assessment, telling The Ticker: “The students’ attempt at satire crossed the line.”

However, both Cousins and TCCHS Principal Rick Vandermolen defended the Black & Gold, noting that students are purposefully given a wide latitude in journalistic expression as part of their learning environment at the school.

“Our students take their work seriously and have won many awards as a result of that for the newspaper,” Mr. Cousins said. “We want them to be able to push boundaries and have genuine expression. At the same time, they need to be sensitive to our cultural norms at the school. They didn’t use that judgment this time. But they’re kids and they’re doing their best, and this offers an opportunity for us to have a conversation about what’s appropriate and how we can improve going forward.”

Vandermolen agrees, noting that while in this situation the students “clearly crossed a line,” boundaries are not black-and-white and the school’s goal isn’t merely to “publish a newspaper that’s not offensive.” “I want the students to have a wide berth,” he explained. “For me, it’s not a disciplinary situation but rather a conversation with the students about proper conduct and expectations for the paper.”

TCAPS is just one in an extensive parade of school districts across the country that have wrestled with how much – if any – editorial control they should exert over student newspaper content. High school stories on topics including abortion, marijuana legalization, religion, politics, sexual orientation and – yes, lewd dancing – have resulted in heated school board meetings, the firings of faculty advisers, and courtroom battles over free speech.

Frank LoMonte, Executive Director at the Student Press Law Center, points out that students traditionally retain First Amendment rights while on school property. However, the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier gives public school officials grounds to censor some student content “if they demonstrate reasonable educational justification” for doing so, said Mr. LoMonte. He added that “it’s not terribly clear whether removing an article for taste reasons” is covered under that provision.

Even with that distinction, Mr. LoMonte notes that students should take into account two questions when deciding whether to publish content: What does the law allow you to publish? And what should you publish in the interest of good professional judgment? “This might be an example of a violation of the latter, where it wasn’t good professional judgment to publish this article even if they legally could,” he explains. “But the school district is absolutely right to treat this as a teachable moment, rather than a punishable offense.”

Source:  The Ticker, 3/7/13, By Beth Milligan

[Editor's Note: On March 7, 2013, the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) reported on a similar dispute at Mountain View High School in California. According to SPLC, a number of parents complained to members of the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District school board about an article in the student newspaper that discussed the state of the sex education curriculum at the school.

One of the parents told the board that she had contacted the California State Board of Education to make a formal complaint against the district “for not enforcing the behavioral guidelines and allowing articles promoting illegal and obscene behavior to repeatedly be printed in the school newspaper.”  Superintendent Barry Groves said he had not yet received notice of a complaint. Mr. Groves said that he does not anticipate the district making any policy changes related to the newspaper issue, citing California's broad First Amendment laws concerning students.

In January 2013, Mr. Mark Walsh of Education Week reviewed the history of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier on its 25th anniversary ("Landmark Student-Press Ruling Resonates Decades Later"), providing inside information on the Justices' votes and commentary on the affects the decision had on school newspapers. ]

South Dakota enacts law allowing armed teachers and staff on school grounds

According to an Associated Press (AP) report, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed a bill allowing the state’s school districts to arm teachers and other personnel with guns. The bill’s main sponsor, Representative Scott Craig,  said that he had received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.

However, several representatives of school boards, school administrators, and teachers opposed the bill during committee testimony last month. They said the measure could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings, and put guns in the hands of people who are not adequately trained to shoot in emergency situations.

For a dozen years, Utah has allowed teachers and others with concealed carry licenses to wear a gun in public schools. A couple of school districts in Texas have been given written authorization to allow guns in schools. And legislatures in other states, including Georgia, New Hampshire, and Kansas are working on measures similar to South Dakota.

Earlier in the week, the South Dakota House voted 40-19 to accept the Senate version of the bill, which added a requirement that a school district must decide in a public meeting whether to arm teachers and others. Another Senate amendment allowed school district residents to push a school board’s decision to a public vote.

The measure does not force a district to arm its teachers and would not force teachers to carry a gun.

Source:  Associated Press, 3/8/13, By Staff

[Editor's Note: In December 2012, Legal Clips summarized an AP article in the Times-Picayune, which reported that in the community’s lone school in Harrold, Texas, some of the teachers were carrying concealed weapons.  In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff’s office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know – and trust – one another.  So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.]