August 2010 Archives

August 25, 2010

Refugee Students in Minneapolis Lose Court Battle

A group of Ethiopian and Somali refugee students who allegedly received inadequate educational services from an alternative high school in Minneapolis are not entitled to relief under federal and state civil rights laws, a federal appeals court has ruled.

Thirteen students who attended Abraham Lincoln High School, an alternative school run by a private group under contract to the Minneapolis school district, sued under the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a Minnesota civil-rights law. All were natives of Ethiopia or Somalia and had spent time in a refugee camp in Kenya before arriving in Minneapolis between the ages of 14 and 20 with little formal education and little ability to speak English, according to court papers.

At different times from 1999 to 2006, the students attended Abraham Lincoln High, which was operated by the Institute for New Americans. The students lodged a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education in 2005, alleging that the school was not meeting their needs. A state investigation found that the school was not adequately identifying students in need of special education, that its English-language learners had only a 17 percent pass rate on state tests (compared with 40 percent for all ELLs statewide), and that a relatively high proportion of its students were "aging out," or reaching age 21 without graduating.

The school district agreed to a plan for corrective action, court papers say. In 2005, the thirteen plaintiffs filed their civil rights suit, citing the state investigation as part of their evidence that the school and the Minneapolis district were discriminating against them on the basis of national origin.

A federal district court found that there was no strong evidence of intentional national origin bias by school or district officials. The district court also found that the school district was not violating the law by delaying special education testing for some of the students for at least three years after they were in school, on the theory that officials could not reliably assess whether a student needed special education services until the student had been in the country long enough to learn English.

The students appealed, but in an Aug. 25 opinion in Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High School, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, in St. Louis, upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants.

"A policy that treats students with limited English proficiency differently than other students in the district does not facially discriminate based on national origin," the appeals court said in rejecting the students' Civil Rights Act claims.

The appeals court rejected claims under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act because it said no injunctive relief was available to the 13 studdents because they no longer attend the school, and no monetary damages are available under the EEOA at all.

It is a bit unclear whether Abraham Lincoln High School continues to operate in the same manner. The Minneapolis Public Schools' Web site does not list the school.

August 24, 2010

Curriculum Director's Age-Bias Suit Revived

A federal appeals court has reinstated an age-discrimination lawsuit filed by a school district administrator who was demoted amid questions from her superiors about when she was going to retire.

Judy F. Jones was the 59-year-old executive director of curriculum and instruction for the Oklahoma City school district in 2007 when she was demoted to elementary school principal, according to court papers. During the 2006-07 school year, two executive directors and the interim superintendent asked her about her retirement plans, her lawsuit says.

When John Porter became the new Oklahoma City superintendent in 2007, he eliminated Jones' position and had her reassigned as a principal, which eventually resulted in her $98,000 annual salary being reduced by $17,000. One month after the reassignment, Porter created the position of executive director of teaching and learning, with duties similar to those of Jones' former job, and a 47-year-old educator was given the position, court papers say.

The district claimed in court papers that the superintendent had decided to create a new deputy superintendent's position in a revenue-neutral manner, and that Jones' curriculum post was eliminated to fund the new position.

Jones sued under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A federal district court judge granted summary judgment to the school district, ruling that despite the fact that Jones presented a prima facie case of age bias and evidence that the district's proffered reasons for the demotion were pretextual, her case fell into a narrow range in which no juror could reasonably conclude that the district had committed age discrimination.

In an Aug. 24 decision in Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, reversed the district court.

The appeals court said the district judge was wrong to require Jones, at the summary judgment stage, to present additional evidence of age bias beyond her facial case and her evidence of pretext.

"Jones presented evidence that a new position, executive director of teaching and learning, was created shortly after her transfer," the appeals court said. "This position's job responsibilities were strikingly similar to those of Jones' former position as executive director of curriculum and instruction. Although [the school district] argues that the new
position entailed more responsibility, it also admits that the position reabsorbed many of
the same duties of Jones' former position and was filled by someone 13 years Jones' junior."

The 10th Circuit's ruling allows Jones's case to potentially go to trial.

August 18, 2010

Court Rejects Challenge to Curriculum Guide on Genocide

A state education commissioner's decision to alter an advisory curriculum guide on genocide and human rights in response to political pressure did not violated the First Amendment, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The case involves a Massachusetts curriculum guide released in 1999, a year after the passage of a state law that required the state board of education to "formulate recommendations on curricular material on genocide and human rights issues, and guidelines for the teaching of such material."

Then-Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll circulated a draft of the guide that included a reference to the genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish empire in 1915 and following years. This prompted a request from a local Turkish cultural group to add references to the "contra-genocide perspective."

Driscoll added such references and some links to Turkish Web sites, but he later removed them from the document, citing the fact that the legislation required the state board to "address the Armenian genocide and not to debate whether or not it occurred," according to court documents.

A group of parents, students, teachers, and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations sued, arguing that the removal of Turkish references in the document violated their First Amendment rights to "inquire, teach and learn free from viewpoint discrimination."

The plaintiffs lost in a federal district court and in an Aug. 11 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, in Boston.

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter served on the panel, and he wrote the unanimous opinion in Griswold v. Driscoll.

Souter said the case boiled down to whether the document on human rights and genocide amounted to a "virtual school library," as the plaintiffs argued, with its lists of reference materials and Web sites, or was more like an element of the state curriculum, as the state contended.

If the library metaphor were accepted, Souter said, the decision the remove "contra-genocide" references from the document would be subject to the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico.

In that case, the court ruled for students who challenged the removal of certain books from a school library under orders from the local school board. A mere plurality of the court concluded that a school board could not remove books from a library for the purpose of denying students access to ideas unpopular with board members.

Souter said Pico did not apply to the Massachusetts case because the decision to remove the contra-genocide references was not forced from above but was made by the same official—the state commissioner—who had inserted them earlier.

Souter said that even though the guide has been made available to students, "the overwhelming obvious point of the guide is to provide teachers with a framework and sources of materials for teaching 'genocide and human rights issues' as a subpart of the existing curriculum, for which no standard text or anthology is assumed to be available or sufficient."

"The revisions to the guide after its submission to legislative officials, even if made in response to political pressure, did not implicate the First Amendment," Souter concluded.

August 04, 2010

Prop. 8 School Messages Figure in Ruling Against Measure

Proponents of the 2008 California constitutional amendment that bars same-sex marriage played on fears that schools would be required to teach children that gay marriage was OK if the ballot inititiave was defeated, a federal judge concludes as part of his ruling Wednesday striking down the measure.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of San Francisco held that Proposition 8 violates the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian," Judge Walker wrote in his 138-page opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. "The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child."

Judge Vaughn quoted two pro-Proposition 8 strategists who described in a magazine article after the measure won that focus groups and surveys led them to create campaign messages focusing on, in one of the strategist's words, "how this new 'fundamental right' would be inculcated in young children through public schools."

The judge also cited a pro-Prop. 8 campaign advertisement quoting a school-age girl saying, "At school today, I was told that I could marry a princess too." In the ad, the girl's mother displays an expression of horror.

Judge Vaughn rejected arguments from the Proposition 8 opponents that such messages were meant solely to raise concerns that students would be taught about same-sex marriage as early as 1st or 2nd grade.

"The evidence shows ... that Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," the judge wrote.

He ultimately concludes that Prop. 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

"Indeed," the judge added, "the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

The decision is expected to be appealed.


Follow This Blog

Advertisement

Advertiser Links
Advertiser Links

Archives

Most Viewed
On Education Week

Recent Comments

  • shutters: Its difficult once your kids get older to keep them read more
  • Joel Reidenberg: The study does not challenge the value to local schools read more
  • Joe: So, public schools are collecting their students' data in ways read more
  • JT: I still find it unbelievable that people can work in read more
  • Sandra Surace: What can a person do who suffered retaliation by school read more