Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed a bill that repeals part of the Amy Hestir Student Protect Act, which prohibited private internet interactions between teachers and students. As you will recall, the law was determined to likely be unconstitutional and a judge issued an injunction temporarily preventing the law from taking effect. See 8/31 blog post, "UPDATE: Missouri Law Prohibits Private Interactions Between Teachers and Students on the Internet, But State Court Finds the Law Likely Violates Right to Freedom of Speech."
Although schools have an interest in preventing inappropriate contact between teachers and students, the First Amendment Rights of those teachers and students are also an important issue to weigh when making legal and policy decisions whether and how to regulate teacher and student interactions.
For additional background, see 8/9 blog post, "Missouri Law Prohibits Private Interactions Between Teachers and Students on the Internet."
Meghan Covert Russell
Monday, October 31, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Attempt to Fix the Open Enrollment Act Vetoed by Governor Brown
AB 47 would have addressed some flaws in the Open Enrollment Act (aka the Romero Bill) but was vetoed by Governor Brown on October 8, 2011. The Open Enrollment Act was enacted last year in the wake of legislative flurry to enact Race to the Top legislation. The Act requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to identify a list of 1000 “low-performing” schools ranked by API scores, limits any one district’ schools on the list to 10% and exempts charters and other specified schools from the list.
During its first year of implementation in 2010-11, the list of 1000 schools included a number of high performing schools with API scores of 800 and above as well as a number of special education programs. In 2010, at least 96 of these schools requested and received a waiver from the Act’s provisions. An additional 103 low performing charter schools were excluded from the list.
AB 47 would have required a list of up to 1000 schools rather than a total of 1000 schools. It also would have excluded any school with an API over 700 or that had growth of 50 points or more from the list; and would have included charter schools but excluded special education programs.
While the bill had considerable education community support, passage of the bill was based on a clear party line vote. Perhaps the Legislature will try again next year and Governor Brown will change his mind, allowing the flaws to be fixed while maintaining the original intent of the Open Enrollment Act.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
During its first year of implementation in 2010-11, the list of 1000 schools included a number of high performing schools with API scores of 800 and above as well as a number of special education programs. In 2010, at least 96 of these schools requested and received a waiver from the Act’s provisions. An additional 103 low performing charter schools were excluded from the list.
AB 47 would have required a list of up to 1000 schools rather than a total of 1000 schools. It also would have excluded any school with an API over 700 or that had growth of 50 points or more from the list; and would have included charter schools but excluded special education programs.
While the bill had considerable education community support, passage of the bill was based on a clear party line vote. Perhaps the Legislature will try again next year and Governor Brown will change his mind, allowing the flaws to be fixed while maintaining the original intent of the Open Enrollment Act.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
Monday, October 10, 2011
Governor Vetoes AB 165-Student Fees Bill
AB 165 codified the state constitutional right to a free public education by prohibiting school districts from charging fees for classes and extracurricular activities. It also included new onerous enforcement mechanisms for districts and complaint procedures for parents.
In his veto message on October 8, Governor Brown said district compliance with this right is essential and districts should be held accountable, but this bill took the wrong approach. He stated that “the bill would mandate that every single classroom in California would mandate that every single classroom in California post a detailed notice and all 1042 school districts and 1200 charter schools follow specific complaint, hearing and audit procedures, even where there have been no complaints, let alone evidence of any violation. This goes too far.”
It appears the veto will require the parties to the ACLU lawsuit to go back to court or participate in further settlement discussions. In the meantime, districts should continue to review their student fees practices to ensure compliance but they can enjoy a reprieve from the onerous enforcement mechanisms in AB 165. For additional analysis and discussion please see our Legal Alert.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
In his veto message on October 8, Governor Brown said district compliance with this right is essential and districts should be held accountable, but this bill took the wrong approach. He stated that “the bill would mandate that every single classroom in California would mandate that every single classroom in California post a detailed notice and all 1042 school districts and 1200 charter schools follow specific complaint, hearing and audit procedures, even where there have been no complaints, let alone evidence of any violation. This goes too far.”
It appears the veto will require the parties to the ACLU lawsuit to go back to court or participate in further settlement discussions. In the meantime, districts should continue to review their student fees practices to ensure compliance but they can enjoy a reprieve from the onerous enforcement mechanisms in AB 165. For additional analysis and discussion please see our Legal Alert.
Sally Jensen Dutcher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)