The School Law Blog

A federal appeals court has rejected a constitutional challenge to a federal law that restricts, and in some cases bars, students with drug convictions from participation in federal college aid programs.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, in St. Louis, ruled in Students for Sensible Drug Policy Foundation v. Spellings that the controversial sanctions do not violate the double-jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment.

The student group argued that the primary purpose of the law is deterrence of criminal action, so the secondary sanction on those convicted of drug crimes is form of double jeopardy.

But the court noted that, under the law, a student may restore his or her eligibility for federal student aid by completing a drug-rehabilitation program.

"And the section was enacted as part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, which were primarily designed to increase access to college and make it more affordable," the court said.

Education Week reported in this 2001 story that the Bush administration was taking a strict approach to the law, requiring all applicants for federal student aid to answer a question on aid forms about whether they have ever been convicted of the covered drug offenses.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

A federal district judge has ruled against the state of Connecticut in its lawsuit against U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings over the administration of the No Child Left Behind Act.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz of New Haven, Conn., issued a decision Monday rejecting the last of the state's claims. The judge had dismissed other claims in the suit in 2006.

Judge Kravitz turned away Connecticut's efforts to have the federal court overturn Secretary Spellings' administrative decision turning down the state's request seeking greater flexibility in testing students in special education and English-language learners under the law. The judge said the secretary's actions were not arbitrary or capricious.

On a key issue that has been raised in another legal challenge to the NCLB law, Judge Kravitz declined to rule on the state's arguments that the secretary was enforcing the federal education law in a way that violates a provision of the law that bars the federal government from imposing "unfunded mandates" on the states.

"The court has no doubt that the very important issue of the proper interpretation of the unfunded-mandates provision is not before this court," Judge Kravitz said in his opinion, because Connecticut had not properly raised the issue during the secretarys' review of its NCLB plan.

"Though Connecticut provided estimates of what it would cost to modify and implement assessment policies and accommodations for LEP students and to develop alternate assessments for students with disabilities, nowhere did it state that the federal funding was insufficient to cover those costs," the judge said. "Instead, the State sought to justify its requests on the basis of reasons other than cost."

The judge said the state is free to raise the unfunded-mandates issue in the next round of administrative decisions before the secretary. That would put off any legal decision on the issue for many months, if not years.

My Education Week colleague David Hoff writes about the ruling here in his NCLB: Act II blog, including a statement from the U.S. Department of Education that the decision is a "resounding victory for children and families."

The Associated Press reports on the ruling here. This updated AP story on the site of the Hartford Courant quotes a statement by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that he intends to appeal the decision.

The other big NCLB ruling I alluded to above was the Jan. 7. decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, that the states were not on clear notice of their financial obligations when they agreed to accept federal funds under the law. Secretary Spellings' request seeking a rehearing before the full 6th Circuit court is pending.

Education Week reported on the 6th Circuit decision here, and in this story that discussed the possible impact on the Connecticut case.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled 6-3 that random searches by drug-sniffing dogs in schools violate students' right to privacy.

In Her Majesty the Queen v. A.M. , the nation's top court upheld two lower courts that had thrown out drug-possession charges of a student whose backpack had been searched after a police dog alerted to it and the police found marijuana and mushrooms. The principal of St. Patrick School in Sarnia, Ontario, had invited police to conduct the warrantless search. Students were kept in their classrooms while the dog sniffed their backpacks.

The majority on the Supreme Court held that the sniffer-dog search of the backpack violated Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

"Teenagers may have little expectation of privacy from the searching eyes and fingers of their parents, but they expect the contents of their backpacks not to be open to the random and speculative scrutiny of the police," said a plurality opinion by Justice William Ian Binnie.

The Globe and Mail newspaper reports here, CBC News reports here, and Bloomberg News reports here. (Thanks to How Appealing for the tip.)

A couple of years ago, my Education Week colleague Andrew Trotter reported that more U.S. school districts were using drug-detection dogs. A visit to a school in Oklahoma City showed that "campus searches typically cover parking lots, student lockers, and school common areas, such as the cafeteria. The dogs do not sniff students directly."

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of drug-searching dogs in schools.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Today we deal with Truth, justice, and the Connecticut way:

Equal Access Act: A federal appeals court ruled today that a Washington state school district did not violate the federal Equal Access Act or the First Amendment by denying recognition to a student Bible club because the club's charter conflicted with the district's non-discrimination policy.
However, because there were questions about whether the district violated the group's rights by refusing to exempt it from the policy based either on its religion or the content of its speech, the court reversed a summary judgment order in favor of the school district and ordered further proceedings.
The ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, in Truth v. Kent School District is here.
The case involves a proposed student Bible group called Truth at Kentridge High School, and the core controversy is over the club's interest in limiting full voting membership in the club to students who pledge to abide "in good faith with Christian character, Christian speech, Christian behavior and Christian conduct as generally described in the Bible.”

Unitary Status in Tucson: "A federal judge essentially has released the Tucson Unified School District from a 30-year-old desegregation order," the Associated Press reports here. The opinion by U.S. District Judge David C. Bury is here.
The Tucson Citizen reports here that "much of the desegregation order, however, lost its bite in August, when Bury ruled TUSD's student assignment policy unconstitutional."
The judge's August order is here.

Connecticut School Funding: The Connecticut Supreme Court this week considered a lawsuit challenging the way the state funds public education. The Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding has a Web page devoted to its case, which is seeking to overturn a lower-court ruling that the state constitution does not mandate a minimum standard of quality for public education.
The Hartford Courant reports here.
Yale Law School has this press release about how two students in its Education Adequacy Clinic got to argue the case before the state high court justices.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A federal appeals court has ordered that an Illinois student be allowed to wear a T-shirt that says "Be Happy, Not Gay" to protest the annual Day of Silence in support of gay students.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, unanimously rejected arguments from the Indian Prairie school district in suburban Chicago that it should be able to bar a student from wearing the shirt on the school day after the Day of Silence because it would be derogatory and offensive to some students.

" 'Be Happy, Not Gay' is only tepidly negative; 'derogatory' or 'demeaning' seems too strong a characterization," U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner said in the opinion for the court in Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School District No. 204. "As one would expect in a school the size of Neuqua Valley High School, there have been incidents of harassment of homosexual students. But it is highly speculative that allowing the plaintiff to wear a T-shirt that says 'Be Happy, Not Gay' would have even a slight tendency to provoke such incidents, or for that matter to poison the educational atmosphere."

"Speculation that it might is, under the ruling precedents, and on the scanty record compiled thus far in the litigation, too thin a reed on which to hang a prohibition of the exercise of a student’s free speech," the judge added .

I wrote this story in this week's Education Week discussing the Day of Silence and some of the legal issues that have arisen out of it, including the Illinois case. I have a related blog post here.

The Day of Silence is scheduled for this Friday, April 25. The Day of Truth, an alternative event sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, which is when Illinois student Alexander Nuxoll wants to wear his "Be Happy, Not Gay" shirt, is scheduled for Monday, April 28.

UPDATE: My longer Education Week story on the ruling is now available here.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A New York state appeals court upheld the New York City school system's controversial rules prohibiting students from carrying cell phones in schools, the Associated Press reports.

The ruling in Price v. New York City Board of Education comes from the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Keep in mind that in New York, the Supreme Court is the trial court level, the Supreme Court Appellate Division is the intermediate appeals court, and the Court of Appeals is the state's highest court.

"Ultimately, while the parents present cogent reasons why they would like their children to carry cell phones during the school day, our role is not to choose between two legitimate but competing interests," the appeals panel said. "Because the cell phone policy was within the department's power, judicial interference is not warranted."

Education Week reported on the cell-phone controversy in New York City schools here.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Education's regulations on highly qualified teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act goes before a federal district judge in San Francisco on Wednesday.

Public Advocates, one of the groups behind the suit, issued this media advisory. The suit contends that the NCLB statute defines a "highly qualified" teacher as one who has a full state teaching credential, while the Education Department's regulations improperly count teachers in alternative-certification programs as meeting the standard. The complaint is here.

Education Week reported on the suit here last year.

This case should be worth watching, not least for how the court evaluates regulations promulgated to carry out the NCLB law. Just today, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings proposed a host of new NCLB rules. The department's summary page is here, and EdWeek's story is here.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How's that for a mix? Your School Law Blogger has been busy this week, what with Pope Benedict XVI tying up traffic here in Washington and other events. So here are some unrelated items:

Day of Silence: The annual protest in schools for tolerance of gay students takes place next Friday, April 25. I have this story in next week's Education Week about the event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, and about counter events, particularly the Day of Truth sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, which is held on the school day after the Day of Silence. The story mentions a case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit about a student seeking an injunction to wear a "Be Happy, Not Gay" T-shirt in response to the day of silence. The court heard arguments earlier this month on an expedited basis, and several lawyers said they were expecting a ruling before this year's protest days.

Family and Medical Leave Act: Speaking of the 7th Circuit, a panel of that court this week revived the lawsuit of a school district bookkeeper who lost her job after missing numerous days of work to care for her ailing parents.
"The actions of the school board and the superintendent during [the bookkeeper's] period of FMLA leave ... raise serious questions about their reason for discharging her," the appeals panel said in Lewis v. School District No. 70.

Racial Diversity in Lynn: I'm a little behind the curve on this, but there was an interesting U.S. District Court ruling last week regarding the Lynn, Mass., school district's race-conscious student assignment policy. The district judge rejected a request to reopen the Lynn case in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, which restricted the permissible uses of race in assigning students to schools.
"In denying this motion, the Court expresses no view whatsoever as to whether Parents Involved would require a finding that the Lynn Plan is unconstitutional," said the March 31 ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner in Comfort v. Lynn School Committee. (Thanks to the NSBA's Legal Clips for the tip.)
Education Week last reported on the Lynn case here, and my former colleague Karla Scoon Reid visited Lynn in 2004 to see how the plan works.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A high school football coach with a long history of participating in, and sometimes leading, his team's prayers may not continue to bow his head for pre-meal grace or take a knee during pre-game prayers, a federal appeals court ruled today.

Two judges on the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, said the history of Marcus Borden, the head football coach at East Brunswick High School in New Jersey, was critical to their ruling, which overturned a federal district court opinion that had allowed the coach to bow and kneel, so to speak.

"A reasonable observer would have knowledge of Borden’s extensive involvement with the team’s prayers over the past twenty-three years during which he organized, participated in, and led prayer," the court said in Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick. "Based on this history, we hold that a reasonable observer would conclude that Borden is showing not merely respect when he bows his head and takes a knee with his teams and is instead endorsing religion."

The concurring judge said he believes the coach's kneeling and head-bowing might violate the First Amendment's prohibition against government establishment of religion even absent his 23-year history of "promoting team prayer."

The concurring judge includes in his opinion this photo from The Boston Globe of Coach Borden kneeling with his players in 2006, after the coach won in the district court.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just ran across this federal appeals court opinion from last week in a criminal case, and I think it is a great cautionary tale for schools.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, on April 7 upheld the mail-fraud conviction of a man who bilked a number of schools, teachers, and parents in the Miami area out of money for tickets to a Christmas pagaent that never took place.

According to court papers, David Lee Ellisor approached public and private school teachers in the fall of 2003 to urge them to take their students on a field trip to a "Christmas From Around the World extravaganza," which was to be held in a hotel convention hall and feature a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to meet foreign diplomats from Washington, who were purportedly to attend the show to highlight their countries' Christmas traditions.

Teachers from at least 23 schools ordered tickets to the show, for which Ellisor also promised a meal, educational scavenger hunts, live reindeer, and other attractions, court papers say. Many of the schools collected $10 per student and made checks payable to a bank account Ellisor controlled. The organizer also distributed raffle tickets to the schools, promising prizes to raffle winners and offering extra tickets to students who made ornaments for the Christmas trees at the event.

At one school, Ellisor arrived to pick up a check for $2,260 and the principal was concerned about his "disheveled appearance," the court papers say, but Ellisor reassured the principal the Christmas show would exceed students' expectations. (Ellisor had been in discussion with caterers, a Christmas retailer, and the hotel, but at least one of his checks to reserve the hall bounced.)

By now, you know where this is headed. On the day of the show, students arrived at the hotel hall to find locked doors. Ellisor, meanwhile, had removed more than $38,000 in funds from the account and soon bought a used Jaguar 393, asking the owner whether she was sure it "could make it to the Carolinas," the court papers say. He left a telephone message for inquiring parties that said the event had been postponed.

Ellisor was indicted on eight counts of mail fraud, and he turned himself in to authorities in 2004, pleading not guilty. At his trial, the government presented evidence that included a U.S. Department of State security agent who testified that Ellisor was not, as he had claimed, a diplomatic liaison and that no group of ambassadors was planning to visit Miami in December 2003.

Testifying on his own behalf, Ellisor maintained his claim that he was in close contact with numerous foreign embassies but that tickets to his Christmas show contained a disclaimer that said "specific ambassadors may or may not appear." He also testified that the show had to be canceled because it was undersubscribed, although the appeals court noted that there was no evidence Ellisor had made an effort to contact those who had purchased tickets to tell them it was canceled.

Ellisor was convicted of the eight counts of mail fraud in February 2005 by a federal jury and sentenced to more than seven years in prison and to pay more than $38,000 in restititution.

The 11th Circuit panel affirmed the conviction in all respects.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A federal appeals court has partially revived the lawsuit of a charter school teacher who claimed she lost her job because she objected on religious grounds to an event where staff members imbibed in alcoholic drinks.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled unanimously to revive the lawsuit filed by Jessica Wilkerson against the New Media Technology Charter School in Philadelphia.

The suit, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, claimed that the charter school didn't renew Wilkerson's contract after she complained that a "libations ceremony" at a staff banquet, which she perceived as involving participants drinking in "religious worship to their ancestors," according to court papers. The court said there was little in the record explaining the exact nature of the ceremony, but it offended Wilkerson's Christian religious beliefs.

A federal district court dismissed her suit, but the appeals court panel revived the parts of her suit alleging she was non-renewed for refusing to participate in the drinking ceremony and for complaining about it.

"Wilkerson's complaints following the ceremony were based on her religious beliefs, and therefore ... could be read to allege that her termination was based on her religious beliefs, a violation of Title VII," the court said in Wilkerson v. New Media Technology Charter School said.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The parties in the long-running desegregation case in Hartford, Conn., have reached a tentative settlement "that seeks to reshape how the state addresses persistent racial isolation" in that city's schools, the Hartford Courant reports here.

The Courant has posted the settlement document here.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has this press release, and the American Civil Liberties Union has this release.

The Sheff v. O'Neill suit in the state's courts has been going on for nearly two decades. Education Week last reported on the case here and here.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of high school students today that they should study the U.S. Constitution and its Framers in greater depth and should only consider the legal profession if they are prepared to work hard.

"How many of your have read the Federalist Papers?" the justice asked a group of students from Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va. When several hands shot up, he said, "All of them?" Far fewer hands appeared.

"You should have a hardback, dogeared copy on your desk" of the set of articles that urged adoption of the Constitution, Scalia told the students, who attend one of the most highly regarded public high schools in the nation. "We identify ourselves as a people by fidelity to certain principles of government."

Scalia welcomed the students to a conference room at the Supreme Court as part of the "Students and Leaders" series of the C-SPAN cable networks, which aired the hourlong session live on C-SPAN 3. (Note: I couldn't get the video to work on C-SPAN's Web site, but that could be a kink on my end. The network says it will re-air the session at 7 p.m. Eastern time Saturday on C-SPAN 2.)

Other justices who have conducted similar sessions include Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and the now-retired Sandra Day O'Connor when she was still on the court.

Scalia praised Thomas Jefferson High and the Fairfax County public school system in suburban Washington, of which the school is a part. He noted that seven of his children attended Fairfax County public schools, which he called "one of the best public school systems in the country."

The young people didn't question Scalia about student rights or other school law matters. They asked him about such issues as the "living Constitution," eminent domain, federalism, the role of international courts in U.S. law, and the exclusionary rule.

The students did ask about Scalia's school days and what prompted his interest in the law.

"I was somewhat of a 'greasy grind'" in school, the justice said. "I studied real hard."

He noted that afteschool sports were not always as organized and scheduled as they are for the youth of today.

"My mother didn't drive us anywhere" for sports, he said. "Parents would say, 'Go out and play.'"

Scalia said he was motivated to study law after college only "for absence of anything better."

"When I got out of college, I didn't have any idea what I wanted to do. I had an Uncle Vince--most Italians have an Uncle Vince--who was a lawyer," and he seemed to enjoy his work, Scalia added.

"Don't go into the law because your parents want you to," Scalia said. "You're going to spend most of your life working."

Posted by Mark Walsh at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Kentucky student who asserted that his school district's policy against student harassment chilled any potential speech of his against homosexuality today lost in a federal appeals court.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled 2-1 that Timothy Morrison did not present a "justiciable" controversy because the former student at Boyd County High School was suing for nominal damages over an abandoned school board policy.

"The claim at stake here involves Morrison's choice to chill his own speech based on his perception that he would be disciplined for speaking," said the majority in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County .

The case stems from a widely reported controversy in the Kentucky district that started when school officials refused to recognize a Gay Straight Alliance at Boyd County High in 2002. That led to a lawsuit, which led to a consent decree in which the district agreed to adopt an anti-harassment policy that covered sexual orientation. The decree also called for students to participate in anti-harassment training, and that led to objections from some parents and students that the policies would discourage or prohibit the students from speaking about their religious beliefs about homosexuality. They sued.

In the meantime, the Boyd County board softened its policy, stating that anti-gay speech would not be prohibited unless it was severe or pervasive enough to affect a student's education or create a climate of hostility. Education Week last reported on the case here.

I won't even try to go much into the complex procedural history of the Morrison suit, other than to say that today's opinion is actually a revision of an earlier 6th Circuit panel's ruling.

"This case should be over," the majority said today. "Allowing it to proceed to determine the constitutionality of an abandoned policy—in the hope of awarding the plaintiff a single dollar—vindicates no interest and trivializes the important business of the federal courts."

The dissenting judge said he believes Morrison has standing to sue over the board's original policy.

"In February 2005 when Morrison filed his complaint, the threatened suspension loomed above him like the proverbial sword of Damocles and silenced his speech," said Judge Karen Nelson Moore.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This week's issue of Education Week has the following school-law related stories:

Teachers' Union Deductions: This story is a slightly longer version of last week's post and Web-only story about the U.S. Supreme Court accepting review of an appeal from the state of Idaho over its law that prohibits school districts from using their payroll systems to deduct from employees' paychecks for the unions' political activities.

Student's IM Threat: I have this story that expands on last week's post about the high court declining to review the appeal of a student suspended for using an icon for his AOL Instant Message signature that suggested his English teacher should be killed.

Justice O'Connor on Civics: I had hoped retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor might have more to say about school law, such as where the conservatives on the court are taking her delicately crafted jurisprudence on affirmative action and racial diversity in education, when she addressed the National School Boards Association convention in Orlando last week. But she pretty much stuck to her planned remarks on the need to improve civic education, as reflected in this story.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at How Appealing, Howard Bashman reports on a lawsuit challenging the University of Texas at Austin's consideration of race in admissions. A white student sued the university over how it considers race after admitting students under its famous 10 percent plan, in which students finishing in the top 10 percent of graduating classes at Texas high schools are automatically accepted at the Austin campus. The Houston Chronicle reports here. The lawsuit by the Project on Fair Representation is here.

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, backers of a petition drive to end race and gender preferences in public employment, public education, and government contracting are calling it quits amid concerns over whether they gathered enough signatures. The Tulsa World reports here. The Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative filed this motion to withdraw with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The initiative drive had been opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed this objection to the drive.

The Oklahoma effort was part of a plan by the American Civil Rights Institute to pass such initiatives this year in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska. The Sacramento, Calif., organization was co-founded by former California Board of Regents member Ward Connerly, who led the successful drive to pass such an anti-preference ballot measure in his state, as well as in Michigan and Washington state.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at the Education Intelligence Agency, union watchdog Mike Antonucci reports on a federal court decision that means more state and local affiliates of the big teachers' unions will have to start complying with U.S. Department of Labor disclosure requirements.

The decision by the U.S. District Court in Washington in Alabama Education Association v. Chao is here. The court ruled that Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao made a reasonable interpretation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 when she decided that it should now cover public-sector unions.

At the national level, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have been subject to the reporting requirements for some time, evidently because they also represent some private-sector employees. (Some state affiliates have also had to file the disclosure statements on that basis, too, my Education Week colleagues on the teachers' union beat tell me.) Ed Week's analysis of the most recent AFT and NEA disclosure statements is here.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post has created quite a discussion with this story about a 1st grader who was allegedly disciplined by school officials for sexual harassment of a fellow student on the playground. The boy smacked a classmate on her bottom, and school officials filed a report on him under the category, "Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive."

ABC's "Good Morning America" picked up on the story today.

While the Post's story had a discussion of relevant state laws in its circulation area, there was little more than passing reference to federal case law and regulations on peer sexual harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The most relevant U.S. Supreme Court case is Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), in which the court held that school districts may be liable for so-called peer, or student-on-student, sexual harassment under Title IX, but only where they were "deliberately indifferent" to information about "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" harassment among students. Education Week reported on the decision here.

In the majority opinion in Davis, then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that "students are still learning how to interact appropriately with their peers. It is thus understandable that, in the school setting, students often engage in insults, banter, teasing, shoving, pushing, and gender-specific conduct that is upsetting to the students subjected to it. Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children, however, even where these comments target differences in gender."

In dissent in that case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cited the then-recent story of a 6-year-old who had been suspended for kissing a classmate on the cheek. Kennedy wrote: "The prospect of unlimited Title IX liability will, in all likelihood, breed a climate of fear that encourages school administrators to label even the most innocuous of childish conduct sexual harassment."

In its official Title IX guidance on sexual harassment in schools, published in 2001 and reiterated in 2006, the U.S. Department of Education makes this relevant point: "It is also important that schools not overreact to behavior that does not rise to the level of sexual harassment. As the Department stated in the 1997 guidance, a kiss on the cheek by a first grader does not constitute sexual harassment. School personnel should consider the age and maturity of students in responding to allegations of sexual harassment."

Posted by Mark Walsh at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here are a few unrelated school news developments:

Turnitin.com: Over at The Edjurist Accord blog, Justin Bathon has tipped us off about the dismissal of a copyright lawsuit brought by students against the company that operates Turnitin.com, an anti-plagiarism Web site. Education Week reported last year on the filing of the lawsuit, which said the company was infringing the rights of students who were required by their schools to submit essays for analysis in Turnitin.com's database. The ruling dismissing the suit is here.

Michigan Girls' Athletics: A federal judge has ordered the Michigan High School Athletic Association to pay $4.4 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs in a long-running lawsuit that challenged the governing body's scheduling of girls' sports, the Associated Press reports here.
About a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the MHSAA's appeal of lower-court rulings finding that it had discriminated against girls' sports. Girls' basketball, for example, was scheduled in fall instead of the traditional winter season, which was a disadvantage for girls when it came to college scholarship opportunities, the lawsuit alleged.
UPDATE: How Appealing has posted the judge's ruling here.

"In God We Trust": A Dallas-area school will put the U.S. motto back on a gymnasium wall after it was painted over when one parent objected, the AP reports here.
The Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the display of "In God We Trust" in public schools. But in his concurring opinion in 2004 in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a case dealing with "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the appearance of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency and Congress' adoption of it as the national motto in 1956 were among several things that "strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our nation's religious history and character."
I've often wondered if schools were barred from any display of "In God We Trust," would that mean no one could take money out of their pockets during the school day?

Posted by Mark Walsh at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lorena Jeanne Tinker, the mother of two students at the center of one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most significant rulings on free speech rights in schools, has died.

Mrs. Tinker was the mother of John and Mary Beth Tinker, who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War in 1965, leading to the landmark 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The court held that wearing such armbands was symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment as long as school was not substantially disrupted.

Mrs. Tinker, who had two other sons and three other daughters, was a longtime peace activist and a college teacher of psychology and education. She died Feb. 28 in Fayette, Mo., at age 86, according to an obituary in the Columbia Missourian. (Thanks to How Appealing for the tip.)

Three years ago, I had the great pleasure of spending a couple of days with John and Mary Beth Tinker, visiting Iowa State University in Ames and a high school in Des Moines, where the brother and sister discussed their roles in the famous student rights case that bears their name. The Education Week feature story that resulted reflected that the Tinkers were very much influenced by their parents. Their father, Leonard Tinker, died in 1978.

There is an excellent book I consulted for my story on the Tinkers: The Struggle for Student Rights: Tinker v. Des Moines and the 1960s, by John W. Johnson, a history professor at the University of Northern Iowa.

In the book, Johnson makes numerous references to Lorena Tinker's supportive role for John and Mary Beth during the armband controversy. Mrs. Tinker was on a bus trip to Washington with John in November 1965 that helped inspire the wearing of armbands by several students in the Des Moines schools to protest the war several weeks later.

And, Johnson writes, at a packed Des Moines school board meeting a few days after the students began wearing the armbands, that Lorena Tinker "told the board and the audience that she and her husband had not raised John and Mary Beth to be defiant but that they certainly supported their children's right to express their views on governmental policy in the fashion that they had chosen."

Posted by Mark Walsh at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)