School Board News

In case you missed the blanket of coverage on the diversity cases decided yesterday by the Supreme Court, check out the following links.

USA Today carried the story on the front page, “National School Boards Association executive director Anne Bryant said she hoped schools would continue with ‘careful race-conscious policies,’ including magnet programs.”

ABC News with Charles Gibson featured the story, “We have our work cut out for us,” said Francisco Negrón of the National School Boards Association. “But I think it’s a task that school boards all over the country are up to.”

Also in the ABC story, “Without using race as a factor, we have found that schools have become more and more racially isolated in San Francisco, or segregated — which is not what we want,” said San Francisco school board member [and NSBA CUBE Steering Committee Member] Jill Wynn.

Negrón was also quoted in the New York Times:

Deciding how school assignment plans will have to be changed to comply with the ruling will require school boards to show some creativity, said Francisco Negrón, general counsel for the National School Boards Association.

“The court doesn’t give guidelines, and it’s not going to be one size fits all,” Mr. Negrón said.

The Times-Picayune quoted NSBA Staff Attorney, Tom Hutton, “Even if you’re under a court order, this is your future if you’re going to be coming out from it. It pays to be thinking about it now, because the landscape is going to change.”

BoardBuzz is still just as disappointed as we were this morning in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to strike down the voluntary integration plans of the Seattle and Louisville school districts, but we’re encouraged by the fact that a majority of the court recognized the ability of school boards to continue to maintain racial diversity as a legitimate educational goal.

After reading the opinion, NSBA‘s General Counsel Francisco Negrón pointed out, “Despite the majority opinion, we are pleased with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s separate concurrence that explicitly rejected the plurality’s contention that racial diversity constituted racial balancing, which is constitutionally impermissible.”

In addition, Anne Bryant, NSBA‘s executive director, noted that “School districts have a compelling reason to create a diverse learning environment because it helps improve student achievement and prepares students to live and work in an increasingly diverse society.”

You can read NSBA’s complete press release here and you can check out Negrón on ABC World News Tonight with Charles Gibson and on various local NBC affiliates throughout the nation. You can also listen to his interview on “All Things Considered” tonight on NPR, during Nina Totenburg’s court report.

Tomorrow, look for newspaper coverage of NSBA‘s reaction to the decision in USA Today, the New York Times, and Associated Press stories. Several other papers also covered NSBA‘s reaction: the Orlando Sentinel, Cincinnati Inquirer, Baltimore Examiner, Washington Times, and the Times Picayune, as well as Education Week.

Legal junkies can get more information and opinions from the SCOTUS blog and the Supreme Court School Integration blog. And don’t forget NSBA‘s great resource page here.

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the diversity cases, striking down voluntary integration plans in the public schools of Seattle and Louisville. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote the majority opinion in the combined cases. The two school districts, Roberts wrote, have “failed to provide the necessary support for the proposition that there is no other way than individual racial classifications to avoid racial isolation in their school districts.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did not join all of the majority opinion, but joined in the result.

Contrary to popular belief, the cases do not involve affirmative action or “forced busing” programs. In a briefing paper on the cases, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund noted that, “In the vast majority of K-12 public schools, there is no competitive admissions process or attempt to evaluate students’ ‘merit’ in determining student assignment. Every student will be assigned to a public school within the district; the only question is which children will be educated together. Or, put another way, the choice is whether to pursue integration in student assignment through voluntary transfers and other mechanisms, or whether to leave schools racially isolated.”

BoardBuzz will have updates on this story later today. Click here to get more information and resources on these cases.

USA Today opines in its editorial today that the yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Morse v. Frederick is “an invitation for school officials to ban or punish any student speech they can reasonably interpret as promoting illegal drug use or perhaps other activities.”

Is BoardBuzz missing something? Is USA Today saying that exposing students to messages promoting illegal drug use is appropriate in schools? Surely not. Is USA Today saying that messages of this sort when delivered by students have minimal impact and, therefore, do not merit regulation? It is true that BoardBuzz left the public school hive many years ago, but is young enough to remember that some things like peer pressure are part of most every youth’s experience.

But USA Today appears to take issue with schools taking an active role in protecting students, objecting to what it sees as overreaching: “There’s no obvious reason the court’s rationale — drug use is extremely harmful to kids, and advocating it should be off limits — can’t be extended to other behaviors, such as sex and underage drinking.”

BoardBuzz is aghast at USA Today’s narrow view of the mission of schools. Thankfully, school boards all over the country know the expectations parents rightfully have of them when they entrust their children to the public schools. And, they know that a safe learning environment is the best place for students to learn.

But, we do agree with USA Today on one count: No, educators “don’t take constitutional lawyers with them to school.” They take their professionalism, their creativity, and their love for inspiring and educating their students. And, now they can continue to do so without worrying that their professional efforts will be undermined by needless and costly litigation.

Read more coverage in the Washington Post here and on MSNBC here. Both carry commentary by NSBA’s General Counsel Francisco Negron.

BoardBuzz is happy to report the Supreme Court handed down this morning its decision in the notorious Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, Morse v. Frederick. Ruling for the Juneau, Alaska School District and its Principal, Deborah Morse, the court found that Joseph Frederick’s free speech rights were not violated when Principal Morse took Frederick’s 14-foot banner emblazoned with the now-famous quote. The court’s decision had two primary holdings: First, that student freedom of speech is not co-extensive with the rights of adults, and second that schools are different and can regulate pro-drug messages. The Court expressly weighed the danger of drug use more highly than the student’s First Amendment claim, appearing to give increased consideration to the notion that schools have a role in maintaining student welfare. In fact, writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts brought a sobering realism to the court’s decision, rejecting theoretical arguments about free speech for the reality of the very real danger of the scourge of drug use, which he said was “serious and palpable.” Hear, hear.

The decision although boasting a strong majority in the judgment (6 justices in all), had 3 Justices dissenting in full and 1 dissenting in part. BoardBuzz is flummoxed. Is this 5-4? Or 6-3? And, it seems at least one justice, Justice Thomas is willing to do away with the Tinker standard altogether! What a day. Justice Alito, however, warns his vote is dependent on the limitation of the decision to regulating drug messages, and cautions the Court not to go to far down the path that would allow school districts unfettered discretion to regulate speech on the basis of the “educational mission.”

The decision also puts to rest the question of whether the Alaska public school principal was personally liable for damages for allegedly violating a students free speech rights when she disciplined a student for holding up a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at an off-campus, school-sanctioned, school-related event. Since it ruled for the school district and the principal, the Court did not reach question of qualified immunity. That means Principal Morse is not personally liable. BoardBuzz is happy to report the even the three-justice dissent would not find Principal Morse personally liable.

So, BoardBuzz celebrates today. Educators and administrators across the nation can sleep well tonight, comfortable in the conviction that they do not have to fear personal legal reprisals when they act in good faith to implement school board policies designed to protect students by prohibiting messages promoting drug use!

You can read previous BoardBuzz coverage of this here, here, here, and here. Check out NSBA‘s press release on the case here.

Last week’s issue of NSBA’s free weekly Legal Clips e-mail service highlights a win and a loss for child advocates on the legal front. One was in court, one in the legislature.

First the good news.

Here it is. The Oklahoma supreme court just blocked a state petition to impose the so-called “65 Percent Solution” on Oklahoma schools, finding that the language describing what the proposal meant was misleading, so voters didn’t realize how it would shift control away from their own communities to the state. As longtime BoardBuzz readers know, the 65 Percent Solution is a campaign soundbite masquerading as education policy.

Leading the charge for kids in the court battle was the Oklahoma School Boards Association (OSSBA). OSSBA executive director Keith Ballard explained to the press that educators certainly agree that as much funding as possible needs to go directly into instruction, but, “In a state where there are limited resources, we can’t pick a magical number. It has to be a decision of a local school board.” Standard and Poor’s has concluded the “magical number” critique is dead on.

OSSBA, by the way, also was part of the coalition that earlier helped save Oklahomans from a so-called “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” (TABOR) proposal. In that one, the Oklahoma supreme court found evidence that the petition drive was tainted by substantial illegal out-of-state circulators. More on TABOR proposals in other states here. These attempts by incredibly well-heeled out-of-state fringe interests to push their 65 percent solution, TABOR, and voucher proposals while making them appear home-grown are common (and frequently pathetic). Luckily, Colorado’s bitter experience with TABOR has created legions of citizens who can testify personally to their friends in other states why this is such a lame idea.

Kudos to Oklahoma’s gutsy school boards and others for their muscular legal advocacy.

Now for the bad news.

Here it is. Maine’s legislature has just approved a proposal by Governor John Baldacci to wipe out about half the state’s school districts in a huge consolidation. Interesting side note for school boards: Some lawmakers are peeved at school advocates for fighting the measure, suggesting groups like the Maine School Management Association (which includes the Maine School Boards Association) were misleading people about its implications for small schools.

BoardBuzz thinks these politicians aren’t giving their constituents enough credit. As Legal Clips editor Tom Hutton points out in his note accompanying the story, the “We’re only talking school districts, not schools!” line has been heard before. Case in point, courtesy of the Rural School and Community Trust.

These small schools and districts often are the very souls of their communities. They also tend to stack up quite favorably on the academic side—as do states like Maine, we might add. But they depend for their survival and success on local self-determination and intense community engagement. As Arkansas discovered, when small communities lose their school boards, their schools may be next. As for the school closings, West Virginia’s self-inflicted venture down that “reform” path offers plenty of painful lessons about long bus rides for little kids and failed promises, fiscal as well as educational. Everyone knows there sometimes are unavoidable realities about declining enrollment. But too often the hard questions are ignored, notably this one: What would be best for the children?

Maine’s experience may prove different from that of Arkansas. We hope so. But let’s all watch closely. And let’s take careful note of who’s been reassuring small communities and dismissing the education community.

BoardBuzz was intrigued by this story out of Seattle which adds fuel to the ongoing debate over student speech versus classroom disruption. We’ve covered the story here, before.

This particular case involves another teacher captured through video magic and posted on MySpace.

It was a sophomoric online video criticizing the hygiene of a teacher that was at issue in U.S. District Court on Monday, when Gregory Requa, a senior at Kentridge High School, asked a judge to order the lifting of his 40-day school suspension for his supposed involvement in producing and posting the video.

Requa’s lawyer, Jeannette Cohen, said the teen didn’t produce the video — taken in an English classroom at Kentridge. But even if he did, his suspension is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, she argued in court.

BoardBuzz begs to differ. The issue here is not about free speech, it’s about disruption … hello? What were the students supposed to be doing in class that day? Presumably not videotaping their teacher and speculating about her hygiene habits. One wonders whether the students are at all concerned about the possibility that they may have defamed the teacher.

BoardBuzz would bristle at untrue allegations about our virtual hygiene. All this talk of allegations and lawsuits reminds us of the legal definition of slander: the malicious publication of an untruth. Wethinks this exists here.

BoardBuzz told you yesterday about the Supreme Court ruling in Winkelman v. Parma City School District that says parents do not need lawyers to represent their children in special education cases in federal court.

Understandably, the story got a lot of coverage yesterday. Click here to read and listen to National Public Radio’s story, which features NSBA General Counsel Francisco Negrón‘s take on the decision. Negrón noted that school boards are concerned that “parents will see this an open gate to litigate rather than collaborate. That would be a shame because IDEA has always been about collaboration.” Read more from the Associated Press here.

The Supreme Court ruled today in the case Winkelman v. Parma City School District that parents do not need lawyers to represent their children in special education cases in federal court. See story in the Washington Post.

NSBA along with the Ohio School Boards Association and several administrator organizations, including the American Association of School Administrators, filed a friend-of-the-court brief this spring urging the Court to rule that non-lawyer parents should not be able to proceed in federal court pro se (meaning parents should not represent their child in federal court). In a 7-2 ruling, the court found the IDEA extended substantive rights to parents, which permitted them to bring their own suits in federal court. But, the decision left unanswered many questions, which are sure to befuddle many in the public school community.

BoardBuzz understands the high court was concerned about shutting parents out of their proverbial day in court, but we also wonder whether the interests of justice, let alone students, will truly be served by permitting non-lawyers to litigate complex federal cases with nary a law license in sight. Since special education cases often amount to a battle of the experts, will parents not versed in the nuances of examining witness be able to elicit the kind of information that a court needs to decide what’s in the best interest of a special needs child? And, what about those parents with limited education? Are they at a disadvantage? How far will federal courts go in making sure a non-lawyer parent represents his/her child adequately?

BoardBuzz is not insensitive to the need for parents to advocate zealously for their children. But, while it may seem fair to allow parents his or her day in court, the more important question is, is it fair to the child? We can only hope this does not mean increased demands on our already burdened court system and greater costs to the ever-shrinking school district purse.