SB 1530, which would have changed the process by which school districts dismiss teachers accused of sexual, violent or drug-related offenses, has been defeated by the Assembly Education Committee. SB 1530 was introduced by state Senator Padilla (D-Pacoima) in response to the teacher sex-abuse scandal at Miramonde Elementary School. However, Senator Padilla is prepared to reintroduce the bill in the next session.
Although SB 1530 was supported by organizations such as ACSA and CSBA, the California Teachers Association (CTA) was strongly opposed to the bill, arguing it would dilute the due process rights of teachers.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Obesity Correlated to Poor School Performance
A recent study has found that a student's obesity in elementary school is correlated to poorer performance on math tests than peers who were not obese.
Researchers do not know why obesity and academic performance are correlated, but suggest that the difference in test scores could be attributed to emotional and/or health issues. Obese children often feel lonely, sadness, and anxiety due to lack of social acceptance by peers. These emotions may have an effect on their academic performance. Researchers also posit that health conditions related to obesity may have a physical effect, interfering with a student's learning and attendance.
We all know that obesity is a major concern; one-third of California children are overweight or obese. Not only does obesity cause physical problems such as diabetes and hypertension, but studies also suggest that obesity negatively affects emotional well-being of individuals. Now obesity has been linked to poor academic performance, beginning in elementary school. It is important to realize the effect that student health can have physically, emotionally, and academically.
What does your school do to help students learn about how obesity can harm them? How does your school help alleviate obesity in students?
To read the story from California Watch, click here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Researchers do not know why obesity and academic performance are correlated, but suggest that the difference in test scores could be attributed to emotional and/or health issues. Obese children often feel lonely, sadness, and anxiety due to lack of social acceptance by peers. These emotions may have an effect on their academic performance. Researchers also posit that health conditions related to obesity may have a physical effect, interfering with a student's learning and attendance.
We all know that obesity is a major concern; one-third of California children are overweight or obese. Not only does obesity cause physical problems such as diabetes and hypertension, but studies also suggest that obesity negatively affects emotional well-being of individuals. Now obesity has been linked to poor academic performance, beginning in elementary school. It is important to realize the effect that student health can have physically, emotionally, and academically.
What does your school do to help students learn about how obesity can harm them? How does your school help alleviate obesity in students?
To read the story from California Watch, click here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Thursday, June 14, 2012
AB 1903 Would Prohibit Districts from Levying Level III Developer Fees
AB 1903 (Buchanan and Hagman), as proposed, would suspend the ability of school districts to levy Level III developer fees. The bill is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, June 20 in the Senate Education Committee.
Existing law enables districts to levy fees/charges against construction in the district for purposes of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities; these are known as Level I or Level II fees. Current law permits districts to increase the levy if state funds for new school facility construction are not available; this is known as Level III fees. Level III fees were intended to provide a safety net for districts by allowing districts to raise funds for construction even if state bond moneys were not available.
However, AB 1903 would immediately, if passed, suspend the Level III provisions of the law. AB 1903 has the potential of preventing school districts from raising additional revenue for school construction projects where the state comes up short. Districts would still be able to charge Level I and Level II fees, but would not be able to breach the gap of state funding by implementing Level III fees.
The text of AB 1903 is available here.
Constantine Baranoff
Meghan Covert Russell
Existing law enables districts to levy fees/charges against construction in the district for purposes of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities; these are known as Level I or Level II fees. Current law permits districts to increase the levy if state funds for new school facility construction are not available; this is known as Level III fees. Level III fees were intended to provide a safety net for districts by allowing districts to raise funds for construction even if state bond moneys were not available.
However, AB 1903 would immediately, if passed, suspend the Level III provisions of the law. AB 1903 has the potential of preventing school districts from raising additional revenue for school construction projects where the state comes up short. Districts would still be able to charge Level I and Level II fees, but would not be able to breach the gap of state funding by implementing Level III fees.
The text of AB 1903 is available here.
Constantine Baranoff
Meghan Covert Russell
Friday, June 8, 2012
Ohio Court Enters Judgment in Favor of Student Who Wore T-Shirt That Reads "Jesus Is Not a Homophobe"
A federal district court in Ohio has entered judgement in the case of Couch v. Wayne County Local School District, in favor of a high school student who wore a t-shirt that said "Jesus Is Not a Homophobe." The case is another example of the tension between student free speech rights and the ability of administrators to regulate students.
The student wore the shirt to school on the National Day of Silence, a day to draw attention to the effect of harassment and bullying of LGBT students. The principal told the student he could not wear the shirt because it promoted religion within the school. The student and his family sued the school district claiming the student right to wear the t-shirt was protected free speech. The district claimed the shirt was sexual in nature and inappropriate in the school setting.
The suit did not proceed to trial, but rather the court accepted an "agreed judgement" -- the parties agreed that the student was expressly permitted to wear the t-shirt to school whenever he wanted.
This school free speech case is reminiscent of the Supreme Court's 2007 case Morse v. Frederick, also known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case in which the Court upheld the discipline for a student's drug-related speech at a school-sponsored, off-campus event. However unlike Morse, the Ohio case did not relate to illegal drug use.
The traditional framework for analyzing an on-campus student free speech case comes from the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Out of this case arose the test for determining if school officials can regulate student speech -- students may be discipline if their speech/conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." The Tinker Test is still the basis for analyzing student free speech, although the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions have added additional factors to consider, such as whether the speech is advocating illegal drug use (Morse), whether the speech is obscene (Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser), or whether the school has a legitimate pedagogical concern in regulating the speech (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier).
It appears that the student's speech in Couch did not warrant discipline under any of the Supreme Court frameworks noted above. There was no school disruption, it did not related to illegal drug use, it was not obscene and the school had no pedagogical concern. It is important to note that although student speech may be regulated in some instances, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Meghan Covert Russell
The student wore the shirt to school on the National Day of Silence, a day to draw attention to the effect of harassment and bullying of LGBT students. The principal told the student he could not wear the shirt because it promoted religion within the school. The student and his family sued the school district claiming the student right to wear the t-shirt was protected free speech. The district claimed the shirt was sexual in nature and inappropriate in the school setting.
The suit did not proceed to trial, but rather the court accepted an "agreed judgement" -- the parties agreed that the student was expressly permitted to wear the t-shirt to school whenever he wanted.
This school free speech case is reminiscent of the Supreme Court's 2007 case Morse v. Frederick, also known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case in which the Court upheld the discipline for a student's drug-related speech at a school-sponsored, off-campus event. However unlike Morse, the Ohio case did not relate to illegal drug use.
The traditional framework for analyzing an on-campus student free speech case comes from the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Out of this case arose the test for determining if school officials can regulate student speech -- students may be discipline if their speech/conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." The Tinker Test is still the basis for analyzing student free speech, although the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions have added additional factors to consider, such as whether the speech is advocating illegal drug use (Morse), whether the speech is obscene (Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser), or whether the school has a legitimate pedagogical concern in regulating the speech (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier).
It appears that the student's speech in Couch did not warrant discipline under any of the Supreme Court frameworks noted above. There was no school disruption, it did not related to illegal drug use, it was not obscene and the school had no pedagogical concern. It is important to note that although student speech may be regulated in some instances, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Meghan Covert Russell
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Ninth Circuit Affirms Trial Court Decision in Waldorf Methods Case
Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court in favor of Sacramento City Unified School District in the longstanding litigation over the use of Waldorf methods in public schools. This case began in 1998 when a taxpayer group named PLANS (People for Legal Non Sectarian Schools) filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the use of Waldorf methods in public schools violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is part of "anthroposophy" which PLANS claimed is a new age religion. The parties have battled this issue over the last 14 years with two bench trials and three trips to the Ninth Circuit.
In August 2010 there was a one day bench trial before United States District Court Judge Frank Damrell on the preliminary issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. At the close of PLANS case, the school district moved for judgment on partial findings based on PLANS' complete failure to meet its burden of proving anthroposophy was a religion. Judge Damrell entered judgment in favor of the school district and PLANS appealed to the Ninth Circuit. KMTG attorney Michelle Cannon argued the case on behalf of Sacramento City Unified School District before the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012.
KMTG is thrilled that this case is finally resolved after so many years and is equally thrilled that Sacramento City Unified School District may continue to operate its very successful Waldorf methods charter schools.
For more information, please see our Legal Alert.
Michelle Cannon
Christian Keiner
Chelsea Olson
In August 2010 there was a one day bench trial before United States District Court Judge Frank Damrell on the preliminary issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. At the close of PLANS case, the school district moved for judgment on partial findings based on PLANS' complete failure to meet its burden of proving anthroposophy was a religion. Judge Damrell entered judgment in favor of the school district and PLANS appealed to the Ninth Circuit. KMTG attorney Michelle Cannon argued the case on behalf of Sacramento City Unified School District before the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012.
KMTG is thrilled that this case is finally resolved after so many years and is equally thrilled that Sacramento City Unified School District may continue to operate its very successful Waldorf methods charter schools.
For more information, please see our Legal Alert.
Michelle Cannon
Christian Keiner
Chelsea Olson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)