Cyber-bullying can be protected speech

One morning in May 2008, an eighth-grader walked into her school counselor’s office at a Beverly Hills school crying. She was upset and humiliated and couldn’t possibly go to class, the girl told the counselor. The night before, a classmate had posted a video on YouTube with a group of other eighth-graders bad-mouthing her, calling her “spoiled,” a “brat” and a “slut.” Text and instant messages had been flying since.

This incident, according to a story in the Los Angeles Times, is all too familiar to school officials throughout the country. It’s referred to as cyber-bullying, and it highlights the much-debated problem of identifying and limiting the authority that a school has over the online expression of its students. A murky trail of legal cases and decisions have left school officials wondering what to do. But in several cases, the courts have told schools to back off because cyber-bullying, while it may be offensive, constitutes protected speech.

In the Beverly Hills incident, disciplinary action was taken by the school district resulting in the suspension of the girl responsible for posting the offensive video online. The suspended student took the case to federal court, saying her free speech rights were violated.

A United States District judge in Los Angeles sided with the student, saying the school went too far. In a 60 page opinion, Judge Steven V. Wilson wrote:

To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offense to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption of the school’s activities, runs afoul (of the law). . . .  The court cannot uphold school discipline of student speech simply because young persons are unpredictable or immature, or because, in general, teenagers are emotionally fragile and may often fight over hurtful comments.

To view the full opinion, click here.

The United States Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the First Amendment issues at play. But lower courts throughout the country have tackled the issue and protected the speech. In Pennsylvania, a student sued his school district after he was suspended for 10 days and placed in an alternative education program for creating what he claimed was a parody MySpace profile of the school principal. On the Web site, the student referred to the principal as a “big steroid freak,” and a “big whore,” among other things, and stated that he was “too drunk to remember” the date of his birthday.

District Court Judge Terrence McVerry found that even though the profile was unquestionably “lewd, profane and sexually inappropriate,” the school did not have the right to restrict the student’s speech because school officials were not able to establish that the profile caused enough of a disruption on campus. “The mere fact that the Internet may be accessed at school does not authorize school officials to become censors of the world-wide web,” he wrote. That case is pending in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. To read the lower court opinion, click here.

Administrators barred a Connecticut high school student from running in a student election after the student criticized administrators online for their handling of a student festival. You can read more about this case by clicking here.

In Florida, the ACLU sued a principal on behalf of a student who was suspended and removed from her honors class for “cyber-bullying.” Katie Evans had created a Facebook page criticizing an English teacher as “the worst teacher I’ve ever met,” and invited others to express their “feelings of hatred.” Click here for information on that case.

Closer to home, five Miscoe Hill School (Mendon, MA) students were suspended after officials pegged them as participants in a Facebook group devoted to slapping a school official. You can read the full report from the Milford Daily News by clicking here.

An in-depth article from the Boston College Law Review analyzes recent cases on the issue and argues that courts should apply a “control and supervision” test, derived from the analysis used in negligent supervision cases and Title IX cases for student-on-student sexual harassment, to determine whether a school has the authority to discipline a student for his or her online speech.

While we have not been directly confronted with the issue in Franklin, we did have some policy discussions several months ago concerning the use of social media in the school setting. Our resulting policy attempted to balance the First Amendment with the need to provide a safe environment for students. We also recognized that these are evolving issues, and that we should endeavor to teach students to properly use resources, including online tools. Those policies reflect the spirit of the words of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 385−86 (1985): “The schoolroom is the first opportunity most citizens have to experience the power of government. Through it passes every citizen and public official, from schoolteachers to policemen and prison guards. The values they learn there, they take with them in life.”

Stay tuned as there will certainly be updates as the law continues to evolve in this area.

Snowstorm not Snowday

Snowstorm not Snow Day

Well, we had our first “snowstorm” of the season last week, but we didn’t use our first snow day. Sometimes, it’s easy to make the school / no school decision; perhaps even making the decision the night before. Safety is always the primary concern, but many things factor into the decision, such as when will the storm start, when will it end, how much total snow is expected, etc. Our Superintendent of schools makes the decision of whether or not to cancel school and she heard from a few folks that disagreed with her decision.

Things got messy, the road conditions made for some difficult driving and many of the buses ran behind schedule. Some people thought that school should have been canceled. With the benefit of hindsight, they may have been right. However, the decision wasn’t so easy at 5am or so when it needed to be made. At that time, the snow had only recently started falling, the roads were primarily just wet, and the forecast called for a very quick turn to rain. That’s the information that was available at decision time. As the morning progressed, the road conditions became a factor, but the DPW probably made snowplow decisions based upon the same forecast information. In addition, the DPW also had to consider the realities of their snowplow budget when making their decisions.

We have a long winter season ahead of us. So, while we will all have a viewpoint on whether or not to cancel school, the decision that each of us has to make is how to react to the Superintendent’s school closing decision. For those of you who decided to pick up the phone last week and verbally abuse the Superintendent and her staff, please note that the same phone number can be used to make your apologies.

Newbie View on the Committee

I’d like to share a few thoughts with the community and provide a bit of insight from the perspective of a new School Committee member. First of all, thank you for voting me in as a School Committee member. I have a strong desire to work for the betterment of Franklin’s schools and I’m glad to be working toward that goal with my fellow Committee members. Before becoming a member, I had no idea how the School Committee worked. Now with a month’s worth of experience behind me, I can honestly say that I don’t know much more than I did back in October and there is a lot to learn!!

When the voting results were posted, Cynthia Douglas (our Committee’s other new member) got the highest number of votes and I received the second highest number of votes. There were 7 candidates for 7 seats and there were widely varying vote totals for the 7 of us. I wondered why that was. I’m thinking that the two new members got the highest vote totals because politics is, well, politics and many times the view that “new” is “better” rules the day. Well, change can be good but continuity can also be good.

Case in Point: I read a comment posted to a Milford Daily News article about the election where someone took offense at the fact that the top vote getter didn’t become the Committee Chair and that the Committee should be ashamed of itself. Well, extending that viewpoint, I guess I should have become the Vice Chair because I was the 2^nd highest vote getter. It doesn’t work that way. The public voting is to elect candidates to the Committee and the Committee as a whole determines the Chair and Vice Chair, which is appropriate. The Committee should get to decide how to organize itself and who should lead the Committee. I for one am glad that we have retained the same Committee leadership. It may not look like it on the surface, but the Committee has a lot of work to do and the Chairs have even more on their plate. I wouldn’t have wanted to take on a Committee Chair position and I wouldn’t have wanted election results to have imposed that position upon me. The fact that the Committee voting on that issue was unanimous is an indication that Committee leadership was not a contentious issue within the Committee itself. However, based upon the number of questions I have already asked him, our Committee Chair Jeff Roy may be rethinking this issue J  In this situation, continuity has enabled the Committee to keep its eye on the ball and continue to focus its efforts on issues that benefit Franklin’s schools.

Moving forward, I will share my thoughts as a new School Committee member and try to provide some insight on Committee activities. In the first month “on the job”, I (along with other Committee members) visited the Jefferson School with Governor Patrick, attended a meeting of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (on Saturday 12/12/09) to review and discuss the upcoming education reform bill, will attend a meeting with State Representative Jim Vallee at the State House next Tuesday, have our 3^rd regularly scheduled Committee meeting that night, and take an all-day tour of the Franklin Schools the following day. While we realize that people are especially busy during holiday season, it would be great to see more people at the Committee meetings. Please try to attend a meeting sometime soon and it would also be great to hear your thoughts during the public comment section.

Franklin Arts Academy unveiled

A few years ago, during one of our budget discussions, Remington Middle School art teacher Roseanne Walsh appeared before the School Committee and recommended that we read and absorb the ideas contained in Daniel Pink’s book entitled A Whole New Mind. In the book, Pink argues that business and everyday life will soon be dominated by right-brain thinkers and he identified the roots and implications of transitioning from a society dominated by left-brain thinkers into something entirely different. With Pink’s book in hand, Ms. Walsh spoke eloquently about the importance of maintaining arts in education to cultivate this right brain thinking. I like to think that we listened.

Through the years, we have attempted to strengthen our arts programs in the school system, recognizing their importance in the learning environment. Indeed, that connection was highlighted again recently by a Boston Globe article which reported on work being done by Boston surgeon to study the effects of music in the operating room. As noted in the article, surgeons have long listened to music while they work – everything from classical to Celtic to rock. They say it helps them relax and concentrate. You can read the full article by clicking here.

This recognition and commitment to the arts in Franklin received a recent boost with the announcement of plans to establish a Franklin Arts Academy at Franklin High School. As noted in the mission statement, the “Franklin Arts Academy will inspire students to learn through the Arts. As a nurturing community, the Academy will be a space where students can flourish within an academic and cultural climate that promotes creation, individuality, and critical thinking through an integrated, project-based curriculum.” The project has several goals:

• To create a small learning community that provides students with the skills and opportunities that will foster artistic growth through active participation, engaging them in their own learning.
• To connect with and provide culture for the community-at-large.
• To teach the students 21st century skills for our ever-changing and interdependent world.
• To provide a learning environment that is heterogeneous, where students can demonstrate their abilities and growth through assessments that meet the levels of proficiency for college entrance.
• To introduce work experience through the exploration of employment, internships, and graduate educational opportunities.
• To create a thriving art scene.

It is a teacher driven initiative and received kudos from the New England Association of schools and colleges in its November 24, 2009 letter continuing Franklin High’s accreditation. The FAA committee — which is led by teachers Michael Caple and Marushka Waters — produced a short video which describes the Academy and vision for the project. You can view it by clicking on the image below, or clicking here.

This is certainly one of the more exciting projects to emerge from Franklin school system, and I urge you to learn more about the program. You can begin by looking at the Academy website by clicking here.

Retired teacher celebrates 100th birthday

Helen Cataldo Carberry celebrated her 100^th birthday with friends, relatives and former students in her home on Sunday. A 1927 graduate of Franklin High, Mrs. Carberry taught 5^th grade in the Franklin School system from 1932 through 1973. She taught at the Horace Mann School which was housed on Emmons Street where the old town hall sits.

Mrs. Carberry and her family shared stories, photographs, and mementos from her days as a teacher in the system. She also displayed the accolades she has received from federal, state and local officials.

Ellen McGrath from the Franklin Alumni Association offered remarks about Mrs. Carberry’s tenure in the Franklin Schools, along with facts from the year of her birth (1909) and the list of classmates from the FHS class of 1927.

Meeting people like Mrs. Carberry is one of the fun parts of the job of serving on the School Committee. She shares the commitment to public education and brings energy and enthusiasm to the mission.

Happy 100^th Mrs. Carberry!

You can read more about Mrs. Carberry in the Milford Daily News by clicking here.

Letter questions emotional statements about election

This interesting and insightful letter to the editor appeared in the November 13, 2009 edition of the Franklin Country Gazette. I have never met the author of the letter, but thought he captured the spirit of many of us who are involved in Franklin government. I have included it in this space — in full and unedited — because it conveys a powerful message and delivers words that must be heeded.

View this document on Scribd

Anonymous posters must be revealed in defamation cases

As an active participant in government affairs, I have seen my share of anonymous blogs and online reader comments under newspaper articles. At times, they can be quite unflattering to put it mildly. There is no question that many of the comments are robust and shed sunlight on issues of the day. But sometimes the comments cross the line and are defamatory. Back in July, I expressed concern about the increase in the use of these anonymous postings on newspaper and other blogs (click here to read that post). An Illinois court decision from last week urged me to explore this topic further.

On November 9, an Illinois judge issued an order to a newspaper compelling it to disclose an unknown individual using the pseudonym “Hip check 16″ who made a posting on the Daily Herald website which defamed a Buffalo Grove Village Trustee’s minor son. You can read the story of that case by clicking here. In the ruling, the court noted that the right to speak anonymously, on the internet or otherwise, is not absolute and does not protect speech that would otherwise be unprotected. The right to speak must be balanced against the right of an offended party to seek redress.

There is no doubt that speech on the internet receives First Amendment protection and that includes protection for anonymous speech. The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that right in Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 199 (1999). In that case, the Court also recognized the Internet as a valuable forum for robust exchange and debate. The opinion goes on to say that through the use of online devices “any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Courts also recognize that anonymity is a particularly important component of Internet speech. Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse, and far ranging exchange of ideas; the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.”

At the same time, however, there is no right to freely defame others. As with most freedoms, we must heed to the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” And that’s what we must consider when balancing the rights of anonymous posters with the right of others to protect their good names.

Here is a look at some other cases which have cropped up around the country on this issue:

A Tennessee state court ruled in October Donald and Terry Keller Swartz are entitled to discover the identity of the anonymous blogger behind the Stop Swartz blog who published critical statements about them and encouraged readers to post information on their whereabouts and activities. In his decision, Judge Thomas W. Brothers adopted a legal standard highly protective of anonymous online speech, but found that the Swartzes had come forward with sufficient evidence in support of their claims of wrongdoing to outweigh the anonymous blogger’s right to anonymity. This video clip of the actual court hearing in that case gives you a firsthand look at the legal issues presented. Click here to view it.

In Doe I v. Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249, 254-56 (D. Conn. 2008), female students at Yale Law School sued unknown individuals using thirty-nine different pseudonymous names to post on a law school admissions website named AutoAdmit.com. A number of anonymous posts contained threatening and derogatory comments about minority groups, sexuality, and incitement of criminal activity. In that case, the court ordered the web provider to disclose the blogger’s identity and noted that the plaintiff had shown sufficient evidence supporting a prima facie case for libel, and thus the balancing test of the plaintiff’s interest in pursuing discovery in this case outweighed the defendant’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

For further reading, and to see how other courts have ruled on these issues (both for and against disclosure), click the links to the following decisions: Solers, Inc. v. Doe, 977 A.2d 941, 954-57 (D.C. 2009); Sinclair v. TubeSockTedD, 2009 WL 320408, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2009); Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App. 4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008);); Quixtar Inc. v. Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 566 F. Supp.2d 1205, 1216 (D. Nev. 2008); Mobilisa v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712, 720-21 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007); Greenbaum v. Google, 845 N.Y.S.2d 695, 698-99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007); In re Does 1-10, ;”>242 S.W.3d 805, 822-23 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007); McMann v. Doe, 460 F. Supp.2d 259, 268 (D. Mass. 2006); Highfields Capital Mgmt. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp.2d 969, 975-76 (N.D. Cal. 2005);  Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005). Best Western Int’l v. Doe, 2006 WL 2091695, at * (D. Ariz. 2006); Reunion Indus. v. Doe, 2007 WL 1453491 (Penn. Ct. Comm. Pleas Mar. 5, 2007).

The bottom line is robust dialog is always welcome. But defamatory speech is not. It is good to see that the courts are willing to open the doors to the anonymous world when speech crosses the line. That should serve as notice to posters that they should consider the legal, moral and ethical components of their comments. And they should be careful with their facts. Because if they are not, the courts will offer assistance to those who seek redress.

Governor visits Franklin’s Jefferson School

It was both refreshing and energizing. Governor Deval Patrick traveled to Franklin yesterday to spend time with the students and staff at Jefferson Elementary School and enlivened the day.

The visit gave the Governor a firsthand account of education spending in action.

The visit was coordinated by Representative James Vallee. “I wanted to bring the governor here to show him just how much funding affects our district,” Vallee said. “Quite frankly, I’m concerned about the future and I want to show the governor and community that we are 100 percent committed to maintaining education funding.”

Complete newspaper coverage of the visit can be viewed by clicking here. As noted in the story, during his visit, Gov. Patrick stressed the importance of education funding through tough budget times. “We have protected funding for public schools,” Patrick said. “That is about the kids and the value we place on them.”

Also during the visit, the Governor participated in Mr. Goguen’s history class using SMARTBoard technology. “The purpose of this technology is to reinforce what I am teaching,” Goguen said.

Following the classroom visit, Gov. Patrick dined with elementary students in the cafeteria.

It was certainly encouraging to have the Governor see our schools and engage with our students. The education of our young is one of the great hallmarks of our community, and the visit highlighted the support we receive in this effort from our state officials in this effort.

FHS building project moving to design phase

The Franklin High School renovation project is advancing and the project’s scope is expected to be presented to the community in 12 to 18 months. School Committee member Ed Cafasso, a member of the FHS building committee, provides this update:

Last week, following approval by the Finance Committee, the Town Council voted unanimously to authorize a $1 million bond for the next phase of the FHS renovation. This funding allows Franklin to hire an Owners Project Manager (OPM) and an Architect to bring the project to the schematic design phase. Under the rules of Massachusetts School Building Authority (SBA), if the Town commits to financing the full cost of this phase, the SBA will refund an estimated 30 – 45%.

The Milford Daily News covered the issue when it came before the Finance Committee (http://tinyurl.com/yz28vqq) and Town Council (http://tinyurl.com/ykboc39). The newspaper stories said the funding would go to “a study.”

That description is off the mark. The bonding authorized this week will result in actual schematic diagrams of the likely renovations, showing the components of the project and its scale. These diagrams will be prepared by a professional architect in close collaboration with an experienced project manager and with members of the Building Committee.

This phase of the project is NOT the same as the study completed in October 2006 by the firm Kaestle Boos, which looked at FHS at the request of the School Committee. It provided a general look of the building’s condition and a “blue sky” assessment of what might be done, ranging from minimal fixes to the construction of a completely new building. You can view the 2006 report by clicking here, and additional information, including the video of the presentation to the School Committee, by clicking here.

The funding authorized this past week allows Franklin to move forward to hire the professional project manager and architect  who will produce the formal schematic designs for renovation work. Every step occurs under the formal supervision of the SBA and the local Building Committee. The design options will be based on the specific renovation ideas that were part of the Town’s application for SBA funding. Those renovation ideas arose from a tour of the FHS building in December 2008 by professional SBA inspection team and subsequent discussions between members of the Building Committee and SBA officials.

The hiring of an Owner’s Project Manager is required by the SBA and by state law. The OPM should be in place by December or January and the Architect should be on board by March or April. Once schematic design is complete, and there is an agreement with all parties involved, including the SBA, a debt exclusion will be required to move toward construction.

Approximately 12 to 18 months from now, Franklin voters will have a very clear picture of the renovation project – the precise work involved, the cost and the timing – and will be asked to vote on whether the town should borrow the amount needed to pay for it over time. If voters approve the debt exclusion, a substantial portion of the total cost (a minimum of 31 percent) will be reimbursed by the state.

Keep in mind that the exact timing of every step in this process is controlled largely by the SBA, which holds tight supervision over all projects they are likely are to subsidize. Information on the general SBA process is available by clicking here.

You can learn more about the FHS project on this Tuesday night (Oct. 13) when Tom Mercer, chairman of the School Building Committee, discusses this phase of work the School Committee at a meeting that begins at 7 pm the Municipal Building. Middle school parents may wish to tune in or attend.

Panther Pride night at FHS coming up

In a few days, parents of 8th grade students will receive a formal invitation in the mail to attend this year’s Panther Pride Night at Franklin High School on Wednesday, October 21, 2009. This is going to be an informative and exciting opportunity for parents and students to explore the scope and quality of the engaging educational and extracurricular programs and facilities that FHS offers to students. All 8th grade parents and students are invited to attend this informative event that will include multimedia presentations, walking tours, information about our graduates. The evening will also highlight the opportunities for learning, sports, clubs, and activities.

Join the FHS team on Oct. 21st in the Field House where Principal Peter Light will kick-off the evening’s activities, followed by an informational video about the opportunities and experiences that are available to incoming freshmen. After the video, parents and students will be escorted in small groups through the high school where they will have the opportunity to obtain more information about our academic programs and facilities, explore the newly organized Technology Center, sample the new Fitness Center, and view classroom resources at various stops throughout the school. A visit to the Art Gallery and DECA Store are also on the planned tour route. In addition, faculty, administrators, and students will be available in the Field House to provide more information and to answer any questions that you may have about the FHS community.

To allow sufficient time for all parents and students to participate in the Panther Pride experience, there will be two sessions offered based on a student’s last name. The first session will start at 5:30pm (for students with last names beginning with the letters A-K), and the second session will begin at 6:30pm (for students with last names L-Z). If you are an 8th grade parent or student, this year’s Panther Pride night is an event that is not to be missed. So mark your calendar now for Wednesday, October 21st.

Testing the limits of pledging allegiance

Pledging allegiance to the flag may seem like a simple act, but it is not immune from controversy or constitutional inquiry. The limits on school systems have been tested over the years, and there have been some recent court decisions on the issue.

Before looking at the decisions, it is important to note that the Pledge of Allegiance, as a ceremonial activity, promotes both civic awareness and patriotism. The Pledge represents an opportunity to reflect on the fact that, although we are a diverse people, we share a national identity as citizens who are committed to the promise of liberty and justice for all. With that being said, we need to be cognizant of the rights of those who may not wish to participate in this ceremony.

A federal district court in New Hampshire has ruled that the state’s statute requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment or Free Exercise of Religion Clauses. You can view the full decision by clicking here. It also rejected claims that the state’s pledge law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. In addition, it summarily dismissed the claim that the pledge law was void as against public policy on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Lastly, the district court dismissed all state law claims without prejudice, allowing them to be refiled in state court.

In that case, the parents of three public school students objected to their children being subjected to recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Specifically, the parents, who identify themselves and their children as atheist or agnostic, contended the pledge offended their and their children’s rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses because of the inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the pledge. They also raised Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims, along with the claim that the pledge law was void as against public policy. In the aftermath of September 11 attacks, the state legislature passed the New Hampshire Patriot Act, which provided for the daily recitation of the pledge in the state’s schools. The statute made student participation voluntary by providing an opt-out clause. While conceding that the children were not compelled to recite the pledge, the parents sought assurances from the principals at their children’s schools that the pledge would not be recited in their children’s classes. However, no such assurances were given.

After briefly discussing the various approaches federal courts have taken to addressing the constitutionality of recitation of the pledge in school, the district court applied the three-prong Establishment Clause test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Regarding the secular purpose prong, it concluded that both the express purpose of the New Hampshire statute (continuing “the policy of teaching [the] country’s history to the elementary and secondary pupils of [the] state”) and the legislative history of the statute demonstrated a secular purpose. It pointed out that the record of the legislative discussions made clear that the law was enacted for patriotic, not religious, reasons. It also noted that the fact that when the pledge recitation law was revised by the legislature it was separated from the provision allowing recitation of the “Lord’s prayer” in schools, further supported the view the law had a secular purpose. Turning to the primary effect prong, the district court stressed that the government may not coerce an individual to support or participate in religion or its exercise. However, it found no coercive effect was present under New Hampshire’s law.

In 2008, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (AL, FL, GA) in Frazier v. Winn struck down a Florida state law that it found requires all students to stand at attention during the Pledge of Allegiance, even those excused from reciting the Pledge. However, the court upheld the law’s requirement that a student obtain parental permission to be excused from participating. You can view the Frazier decision by clicking here.

For a look at more cases under the religion clause of the first amendment, click here.

Justice offers some keen reading and an innovative online course

At a bookstore today, I stumbled upon a book called Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? by Michael J. Sandel. I was first drawn in by the word “justice” on the cover, and on closer examination by the faces contained in the letters. Given my line of work in my day job, this book demanded closer examination. Which brought me to the inside jacket:

What are our obligations to others as people in a free society? Should government tax the rich to help the poor? Is the free market fair? Is it sometimes wrong to tell the truth? Is killing sometimes morally required? Is it possible, or desirable, to legislate morality? Do individual rights and the common good conflict?

Great questions, indeed. Upon further examination, we learn that the author is a Harvard professor who teaches a course called “Justice” at Harvard University. In the course, up to a thousand students pack the campus theater to hear Sandel relate the big questions of political philosophy to the most vexing issues of the day. Affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, national service, patriotism and dissent, the moral limits of markets—Sandel dramatizes the challenge of thinking through these conflicts, and shows how a surer grasp of philosophy can help us make sense of politics, morality, and our own convictions as well.

The book led me to a website (http://www.justiceharvard.org) which contains a rather innovative online course covering these great questions. In the online course, Harvard opens its classroom to the world that helps viewers become more critically minded thinkers about the moral decisions we all face in our everyday lives. And it further introduces us to some of the fascinating aspects of technology in education. It demonstrates how classrooms can go beyond the four corners of a building, and how web 2.0 tools can lead to engaging and thoughtful discussions for an unlimited audience. And it points to yet another wave in teaching and learning, things we continue to explore in the Franklin school system.

For a glimpse of what the Justice course offers, check out the video posted below. And take advantage of this course offering and see what technology can do for your mind.

First Annual Jenna Pasquino Memorial Foundation Golf Tournament

The Jenna Pasquino Memorial Foundation was started in 2009. The Foundation’s goal is to sponsor activities and programs such as scholarships to graduating seniors and charitable community organizations.

Jenna passed away this past April 30th in a motor vehicle accident in Bellingham MA and was taken from us at the young age of 20. Jenna was very involved in the community in Franklin where she lived, was a student in the Franklin Public Schools, and had many friends and family in town and also in the neighboring area.

Its first fundraiser is an annual golf tournament, with the proceeds going to a scholarship fund. This year it will be held on Saturday, October 17th at the Blissful Meadows Golf Club on Chockalog Rd in Uxbridge with tee off promptly at 8:00am. It will be 18 holes, followed by dinner, awards and a raffle. The cost is $125 per golfer. Any non-golfers are welcome to join the foundation for dinner at 1:00 pm, after the tournament at a cost of $30.

The Foundation is looking for tee and green sponsors, goodie bag items and/or gift certificates for services, meals, etc. or items that it can use for our raffle for the tournament.

The sponsor fee is $100 and your business name will appear on an individual sign at one of the holes for the entire tournament. It will also be publicized in the program given to each golfer, along with the list of all contributors. This is a great opportunity for you to get exposure for your business as well as supporting a very worthwhile cause.

We are included a sponsorship form/golfer’s registration form below for your convenience. If you would like to be a sponsor, and/or are interested in playing in the tournament, please fill out the enclosed forms and mail them back with your check to the Jenna Pasquino Memorial Foundation, c/o Erin Donahue, 30 Mill River St, Blackstone, MA 01504 . You can either create your own team or we will be putting together teams for individual registrants. Please respond ASAP so that you will be guaranteed a spot.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact one of the following organizers:

Erin Donahue at (508)641-5074

Andrew Spas at (401)330-6439

Dave Boyan at (508)579-2750

Kelley Byrnes-Benkart at (508)245-2336

View this document on Scribd

Jenifer Fox: Obama is Right, Developing Talent is Key in Education

I thought this was an interesting post and comment on the President’s speech to students and thus have posted a link using ShareThis.

Jenifer Fox: Obama is Right, Developing Talent is Key in Education

Here’s an excerpt, but click on the link to read the entire post:

President Obama implored school children to take responsibility for their own educations. He said, “I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.”

Mr. President is right. Once children know their own strengths and talents and understand how to put them to use, they can create their futures. Schools are very good at teaching children about their weaknesses and helping them see what they cannot do and what they do not know. We are far less skilled at teaching students to understand what they love to do. This should be the nation’s educational charge.

President’s address to students

At noon on Tuesday, September 8th, President Barack Obama will be welcoming America’s students back to school. The President has spoken often about the responsibility parents have for their children and their education, but in this message he’ll urge students to take personal responsibility for their own education, to set goals, and to not only stay in school but make the most of it.

To help make sure as many school districts, classrooms, and students are able to get this message the President has launched a resources page where you can find out almost anything you’d want to know. You can view the resources page by clicking here. There’s information on how you can watch it on TV or on the internet, classroom activities that teachers can engage their students in around the speech, even the satellite coordinates for school districts that want to access the feed.

The President’s address has certainly generated a lot of buzz in the nation and in Franklin. A number of calls and e-mails have been received relative to the President’s address over the last several days. Indeed, you may have read about the controversy in today’s Milford Daily News (click here). Here is how the matter is being handled in the Franklin Public Schools:

• Grades K-5 — Principals have told teachers they have discretion to view on computers. If teachers plan to use the speech in class, they need to inform parents and offer an opt out.
• Grades 6-8 — At this time they are all planning to use the speech as an opportunity to work with students to establish expectations and set goals. The Principals will inform parents thru Connect Ed and offer an opt out.
• Grades 9-12 — Teacher discretion and offer an opt out.

From a pure policy perspective guest speakers are governed by School Committee policy IJOB, which reads as follows: “Resource persons are those individuals or groups who are invited into the schools to present supplementary information and ideas to the classroom course of study. These experiences afford students the opportunity to benefit from community viewpoints. Care should be taken in selecting these speakers so that they are individuals who respect diversity in thinking and varying views and who are not attempting to inappropriately influence points of view.” Some of the other policies of interest to this discussion include the following (click on the link to view the full text of the policy):

• Academic freedom
• Teaching activities/presentations
• Teaching about controversial issues/controversial speakers

The process being followed in the Franklin Public Schools relative to the President’s speech on Tuesday is clearly in line with these policies.

This is not the first time that a President has directly addressed school students. You can view Ronald Reagan’s address to students from 1988 by clicking here. You can view the text of George H.W. Bush’s speech to students in 1991 by clicking here.

From a purely personal standpoint, I am delighted to see that the President is reaching out to students in such a meaningful way. While I am not generally in favor of too much federal involvement in local school districts (see my post on that topic by clicking here), I believe that giving students a meaningful opportunity to hear from a President who is great speaker and leader, is laudable. I can recall being inspired as a youth by a speech of President John F. Kennedy and his call for public service. It’s something I remember to this day, and it is my hope that President Obama will touch students in a similar fashion. It may even spark greater interest in government and public service, and re-stoke the flame of liberty. To that end, let’s encourage our youth to listen in on Tuesday, or during the replays which will no doubt be available on-line.

You can view an advance copy of the text of the speech by clicking here.

The feds are coming, the feds are coming

In an interesting twist, earlier this week, my son and I travelled the Battle Road on bikes from Lexington to Concord, the scene of Paul Revere’s famous ride. It was interesting to follow the steps that led to the first skirmish of the American Revolution which took place on April 19, 1775. And it’s interesting to reflect in the place where the flames of liberty were ignited, and concepts of federalism and the limited role of a central government were nurtured.

That ride brought to mind the President’s current push to rewrite education legislation and invoked a federal takeover of schools in this country (see Boston Globe report by clicking here and Newsweek piece by clicking here).

Education has historically been left in the hands of local communities. It’s part of the idea that the governance of education is best done at the local level, where the parents, teachers, administrators, and students are intimately more aware of the needs of their schools. Indeed since colonial times, Massachusetts required the towns to maintain a system of public schools. The statute of 1647 — which is the precursor to G. L. c. 71, Section 1 — required every town with fifty or more householders to appoint a schoolmaster in the town “to teach all such Children as shall resort to him to Write and Read,” and every town of one hundred or more householders or families to “set up a Grammar School, the Master thereof being able to Instruct Youth so far as they may be fitted for the University.”

The federal constitution purposefully says nothing about education. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), a unanimous Supreme Court recognized that “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” And in 1973, the Supreme Court recognized that education is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). In Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451 (1972), the Court noted that “[d]irect control over decisions vitally affecting the education of one’s children is a need that is strongly felt in our society.” As one of the justices in that case observed:

Local control is not only vital to continued public support of the schools, but it is of overriding importance from an educational standpoint, as well. The success of any school system depends on a vast range of factors that lie beyond the competence and power of the courts. Curricular decisions, the structuring of grade levels, the planning of extracurricular activities, to mention a few, are matters lying solely within the province of school officials, who maintain a day-to-day supervision that a judge cannot.

Despite all of this, the President is making a push to impose national standards in education. Indeed, the federal government is offering funding — through a program called Race to the Top — which will reward school districts that adhere to national standards. But national standards, no matter how brilliantly designed, create uniformity and are harmful to creativity. Aside from that, they ignore the good work that is already being done in states such as Massachusetts. To those who still think American schools are bad and need standards, I suggest you review my last post by clicking here.

For a glimpse of some of the more detailed reasons to oppose national standards, consider the following:

• The best defense against national standards
• Feds In The Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education
• The case against national standards
• Against National Standards

If the federal government wants to help states and local governments, it can begin by funding the mandates already in place. For a list of those mandates already in place and which are not fully funded, click here. For now, the national standards push should be abandoned and we should revert of the federalist system composed at the end of the Revolutionary War.

American schools do a better job than some may think

To those who think that American schools are so bad, look at the book Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization by Yong Zhao. As the jacket materials note, this remarkable book will forever change the debate about what’s wrong and what’s right with American education and where it should be going.

Based on his own experience as a student in China and as a parent of children attending school in the United States, Zhao skewers conventional wisdom while setting straight the recent history and current state of US schools. To make his case, Zhao explains:

• Why the perceived weaknesses of American education are actually its strengths.
• How reform proponents, business executives, and politicians have misjudged American education.
• Why China and other nations in Asia are actually reforming their systems to be more like their American counterparts.
• What really matters for an education system and what really counts as educational excellence.

With an extraordinary command of facts and thought leadership, Zhao describes how schools have to keep pace with a world that is being dramatically transformed by globalization, the “death of distance,” and digital technology. Instead of falling in line with mandates for standardization, his prescription is for educators to

• Expand the definition of success beyond math and reading test scores.
• Personalize schooling so that every student has opportunity to learn.
• View schools as enterprises that embrace globalization and digital technology.

You can view the slideshow from Zhao’s presentation at the 2009 School Administrators of Iowa (SAI) by clicking here or one viewer’s notes by clicking here.

Former Justice urges more civic education

David H. Souter, retired as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, challenged American Bar Association (ABA) members at the Opening Assembly for the 2009 Annual Meeting to “take on the job of making American civic education real again.”  For video of Souter’s speech, click here. 

When more than two-thirds of Americans cannot even name the three branches of government, they cannot speak up for an independent judiciary, Souter said.  “This is something to worry about” and there is “a risk to constitutional government,” he warned.  Souter said he learned the statistic in a conference convened in 2006 by retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

He contrasted the lack of public understanding of the workings of government today with his own civic development as a child growing up in Weare, N.H.  He attended yearly town meetings with his parents, watching community leaders decide issues of local governance, differentiating between legislative and executive functions and between township responsibilities and those of the state.  A respected citizen who had been elected by township residents lead the meeting with fairness and recognition of all viewpoints, in a judicial capacity, he said.  When he reached the ninth grade, the formal civics class taught in school was easy to understand, and not one of his classmates would have failed to identify the branches of government, he added.

The reality that a “majority of the public is unaware of the structure of government,” and fails to understand the notion of separation of powers, is the “root problem we have to face about judicial independence,” Souter said. 

Civic education must be raised to a new power,” he concluded.  It is “the birthright of every American.”

Along these lines, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in cooperation with Georgetown University Law Center and has developed a Web site and interactive civics curriculum for 7th, 8th and 9th grade students called Our Courts. You can view that site by clicking here. At the ABA conference, Meryl J. Chertoff, Professor at Georgetown University Law School and Director of the Sandra Day O’Connor Project on the State of the Judiciary reported on new online learning tool. You can view that video by clicking here.

As part of my personal commitment to this effort, for the past two years, I have participated in the Constitution in the Classroom project at Franklin High School. Constitution in the Classroom is an effort by the American Constitution Society to bring its members into primary and secondary classrooms to raise awareness of fundamental constitutional principles. In 2009, the classroom discussion focused on the Redding student strip search case which was decided by the Supreme Court in June 2009. The conversations with students have been lively and bring into perspective the role of the courts in their lives.

As Thomas jefferson once observed: “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens.”   Those words are critical underpinnings to the need for greater civics instruction in schools.

FY10 budget numbers finally settled

For the FY10 fiscal year, Franklin’s net loss of positions will be approximately 12. That should come as welcome news to the community, considering that in February, we faced a budget gap of nearly $3.5 million. At an average of $50,000, that gap represented approximately 70 positions. The gap we faced forced the school department to issue 60 layoff notices in April 2009, and many of the recipients of those letters have received recalls.

We reduced that budget deficit through reductions in expenditures (as shown in the column on the left in the table below). In addition, we received revenues from one-time federal and state resources, including stimulus funds, and school choice revenues (shown in the column on the right).

	FY10 Level Service Original Budget	53,807,773							FY09 Level Funded Budget		50,297,820
LESS									PLUS
Reduction in Expenditures		Amount							Sources of Revenue		Amount
Health Insurance Pemium		(192,000)							State Fiscal Stabilization Funding		219,523
Administrative, etc. Wage Freeze		(124,000)							Federal Stimulus Package		343,091
Additional Health Insurance changes		(200,000)							Circuit Breaker Extraordinary Relief Revenue		426,339
FEA Wage Deferral		(800,000)							School Choice		145,000
Degree Advancement		(150,000)
Attrition		(210,000)
Prepaid Tuition to out of district placements		(200,000)
Positions eliminated		(500,000)
Total Reduction in Expenditures		(2,376,000)							Total Increase in Revenue		1,133,953
Revised Level Service Budget		51,431,773							Increased Level Funded Budget		51,431,773

 

Some have suggested that we “found money” or were “crying wolf” during the budget discussions over the last several months. A careful examination of the data demonstrates otherwise.

Some of the confusion lies with the fact that because of contractual obligations, we had to notify 60 staff members of impending layoffs, even though we knew the number would be smaller.  Our budget gap was approximately $1,500,000 when the layoffs were announced in April.  That is the equivalent of about 30 positions that we expected to lose. We had the pay freeze from the teachers voted in June which saved us $800,000, we prepaid some special-education tuitions which saved us approximately $200,000, we had attrition funds available due to retirements, we had some available revolving account money, and some funds in the degree advancement category which allowed us to cover the gap. We were fortunate in this regard, because that helped us absorb some of the stimulus cuts announced in late June which interfered with our ability to bring everyone back.  

In general, we were able to get to this point through a series of cost savings and budget reductions.   It is great news that we are able to be in this position after perhaps one of the most difficult budget seasons in a long time. I appreciate the patience and perseverance from everyone on the School Committee, administration, and staff. This was truly a team effort and we should all be very proud of the hard work that got us to this point.

But all of this does not bring us back to level service on teaching positions. In fact, the actual layoffs for this year involved 12 positions, and 10 of those were teaching positions.  We started the year with 399 teachers.  Next year, we will have 389.  The positions that we will end up losing will be five physical education/health positions at Franklin High School, the five librarians spread throughout the district, one assistant principal at Franklin high, and the data analyst position (for a total of 12 positions).

In addition, you should consider the following:   we had 443 teachers as of October 1, 2007. The historical numbers going back five years show that we are on a dangerous trend for staffing of our schools.  The table below shows that we are down from a high of 466 teachers in 2006-07.    These staffing cuts have taken place at the same time we have seen increasing enrollments, resulting in larger class iszes.  That’s frankly not good for education, and again, dismisses the “crying wolf” theory.

 
 

School year	# of classroom teachers
2003-04	408
2004-05	459
2005-06	449
2006-07	466
2007-08	443
2008-09	399

 

You can get some additional history on teaching positions in Franklin by looking at this blog post from last year which can be found at: http://franklinschoolcommittee.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/information-on-teachers-in-franklin/.

A good name is a priceless possession

The increase in the use of anonymous rants and postings on newspaper and other blogs is concerning.  Often times, they express a view from folks who suggest that they have all the answers, but are unwilling to “step up to the plate” and do anything about it.

When reading the remarks of these critics who are weak and unwilling to sign their name, I am reminded of this quote from Teddy Roosevelt:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

In today’s Milford Daily News, former state representative Marie Parente offered her view, which includes an analysis of efforts to identify anonymous posters.  You can view that piece by clicking on this link:

MARIE PARENTE: A good name is a priceless possession – Milford, MA – The Milford Daily News (Posted using ShareThis)

As she notes in the opening of her piece, “The past few months, several published comments on local newspaper articles by anonymous posters appear to have ‘crossed the line.’  One wonders whether they believe they are contributing to a forum, offering constructive criticism or simply intend to inflict pain, damage community standing and humiliate targeted victims.”

The Boston Globe ran a similar piece critical of these anonymous posts.  In it, the author notes that “these forums are insidiously contributing to the devaluation of journalism, blurring the truth, confusing the issues, and diminishing serious discourse beyond even talk radio’s worst examples.”  The author goes on urging newspapers to restore journalism’s integrity by removing these reader forums.  You can read the full Globe piece by clicking here.

Participating in government is no doubt important.  But the destructive use of anonymous rants can hardly qualify as participation.  It is easy to sit back behind a computer screen and hide behind electronic guts.  But in order to be a force worth reckoning, one must be in the arena. 

Jobs of tomorrow report released

President Obama issued a new report this morning on the “jobs of tomorrow” — even as the jobs of today keep disappearing. In the report, titled “Preparing the Workers of Today for the Jobs of Tomorrow,” the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) present a projection of potential developments in the U.S. labor market over the next five to ten years and discusses the preparations necessary to develop the 21st century workforce. The report (read it here) discusses the skills and training that will likely be needed for the growing occupation categories, and the education and training system needed to prepare people for those jobs.

With regard to education in particular, the report notes the following:

Occupations requiring higher educational attainment are projected to grow much faster than those with lower education requirements, with the fastest growth among occupations that require an associate’s degree or a post-secondary vocational award. Key attributes of a well-trained workforce as well as elements of an effective education and training system are detailed below.

The elements of a more effective system identified in the report include:

• a solid early childhood, elementary, and secondary system that ensures students have strong basic skills;
• institutions and programs that have goals that are aligned and curricula that are cumulative;
• close collaboration between training providers and employers to ensure that curricula are aligned with workforce needs;
• flexible scheduling, appropriate curricula, and financial aid designed to meet the needs of students;
• incentives for institutions and programs to continually improve and innovate; and
• accountability for results.

The report concludes that the U.S. economy appears to be shifting towards jobs that require workers with greater analytical and interactive skills – skills that are typically acquired with some post-secondary education. Mindful of this, we must do what we can to maintain a solid foundation in our public school system.

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics offered its analysis of tomorrow’s jobs and highlighted the importance of on-the-job training as follows:

For 12 of the 20 fastest growing occupations, an associate degree or higher is the most significant level of postsecondary education or training. On-the-job training is the most significant level of postsecondary education or training for another 6 of the 20 fastest growing occupations. In contrast, on-the-job training is the most significant level of postsecondary education or training for 12 of the 20 occupations with the largest numerical increases, while 6 of these 20 occupations have an associate degree or higher as the most significant level of postsecondary education or training.

This report underscores the importance of learning how to learn, an important element for a successful education.

You can read the full CEA report by clicking here.  You can view the Bureau of Labor Stsitistics report by clicking here.

Supreme Court will only clarify school rules

Don’t look to the Supreme Court to set school rules, only to clarify them when officials have abdicated that responsibility, Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday according to an AP report (you can view the full report by clicking here).

At a judicial conference, Roberts was asked how school administrators should interpret seemingly conflicting messages from the Court in two recent decisions, including one last week that said Arizona officials conducted an unconstitutional strip-search of a teenage girl. You can view our blog post on that decision by clicking here. In 2007, the justices sided with an Alaska high school principal, ruling that administrators could restrict student speech if it appears to advocate illegal drug use. You can view our blog post on that decision by clicking here. The court’s full decision in the free speech case can be viewed by clicking here.

According to the AP report, Roberts told the audience there was no conflict in the court’s rulings, just clarity intended to deal with narrow issues that surface from government actions. “You can’t expect to get a whole list of regulations from the Supreme Court. That would be bad,” Roberts said. “We wouldn’t do a good job at it.”

You can be the judge of the clarity that emerges from these decisions. From my perspective, the 8-1 decision in the strip search case provided reasonable clarity and was a sound decision based on constitutional principles. The 2007 free speech case, on the other hand, was far less clear and was somewhat disturbing in terms of the curbs on free speech that were articulated. The First Amendment says quite clearly that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” (emphasis supplied). But the Court’s 2007 decision says that you can have some laws abridging speech when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

The community benefits from education

Having strong and vital schools is important for every community. Because we appreciate that fact, we are constantly urging the community to support public education and keep us on the path of moving from good to great. The downturn in the economy has been troubling to these efforts, but we remain committed to the cause.

It is in this spirit that we introduce you to the Common Good Forecaster, a joint product of United Way and the American Human Development Project. They have developed a tool to forecast how things might change in our community if educational outcomes were better.

They have also prepared a companion report which you can view by clicking here. As they note in the introduction:

Those who advocate for greater investment in education often make the economic argument: more education leads to higher wages and is critical for financial stability and independence. They’re right. Robust evidence supports the view that higher levels of educational attainment are linked to higher incomes, less unemployment, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance.

But education is about more than just better jobs and bigger paychecks, important though they are in making families and individuals more financially stable. More education is also linked to better physical and mental health, longer lives, fewer crimes, less incarceration, more voting, greater tolerance, and brighter prospects for the next generation. More education is good for individuals who stay in school to earn their high school degree or who enter and graduate college, but it is also good for all of us, paying big dividends in the form of increased civic engagement, greater neighborhood safety, and a healthy, vibrant democracy.

You can look at the statistics for Norfolk County by going to the forecaster, which you can view by clicking here. Once there you can view the data sets and see for yourself how education impacts our community. We have long been strong and passionate advocates for education in Franklin and believe that the site offers empirical evidence of the benefits of living in a community with a high performing school district. You are also urged to review the companion report for suggestions on ways that you can help and support the educational offerings in Franklin.

Media reactions to strip search case

The American Association for Justice put together a nice summary of media reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding which I have included below with links to the stories.

In the case, the court ruled 8-1 that “an Arizona middle school violated the rights of a 13-year-old girl when she was strip-searched for drugs,” as ABC World News (6/25, story 5, 2:20, Gibson) reported. On the CBS Evening News (6/25, story 5, 1:45, Couric), correspondent Wyatt Andrews called the ruling “a major victory for student privacy. The Supreme Court said the strip search of Savana Redding, then a 13-year-old eighth grader, was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Redding: “I’m glad that it’s almost finally over and I can just continue on with my life. I’m really happy, though, with the decision today.” NBC Nightly News (6/25, story 7, 2:25, B. Williams) said the case involved “just how far public schools can go to enforce those so-called zero tolerance policies that have become so popular. And the question: have they gone too far with our own children?”
 
The USA Today (6/26, Biskupic) reports Justice David Souter, writing for the court, “said an official must have a ‘reasonable suspicion of danger’ regarding the drugs sought and a belief they could be hidden in a student’s underwear before making ‘the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts.’”

The USA Today (6/26) editorializes, “It should be obvious to everyone, and certainly to every parent, that only the most extreme circumstances could justify strip-searching a 13-year-old girl. More extreme, surely, than suspicion that the girl possessed some prescription-strength ibuprofen tablets in violation of school rules. That logic is at least obvious to the U.S. Supreme Court. … The Redding decision could mark a welcome change in direction for the courts and schools, which retain wide latitude to inspect lockers and other student possessions with only ‘reasonable suspicion.” In a responding USA Today (6/26) op-ed, National School Boards Association general counsel Francisco Negron writes that “the court missed an opportunity to provide clearer guidance to school officials. While the court did not nullify zero-tolerance policies, it did require schools to determine the dangerousness of a drug before deciding how intrusive to make a search. It did not specify what it meant by dangerousness. How are school officials to gauge that?”Los Angeles Times (6/26, Savage) reports Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the ruling “‘grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.’ It is the second time this week that Thomas alone has dissented in a major case. On Monday, the court rejected a challenge to the Voting Rights Act, but Thomas said he would have struck down the law provision in question as unconstitutional.”

AP (6/25, Holland) reports the court ruled Safford Middle School officials violated Redding’s rights “by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, declaring that U.S. educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.” While the court said officials violated Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights, the court also said officials “could not be held financially liable but left it to lower courts to decide if the school district could.” 

The Washington Post (6/26, A1, Barnes), the Wall Street Journal (6/26, A2, Bravin), New York Times (6/26, A16, Liptak), New York Daily News (6/26, Meek), National Law Journal (6/26, Mauro) and Christian Science Monitor (6/26, Richey) also report on the ruling. 

The Washington Post (6/26, A24) editorializes, “A six-justice majority correctly balanced the privacy interests of the student with the need to preserve school officials’ flexibility to maintain order and safety. … The court — with Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting on this point — also rightly refused to allow lawsuits against the Arizona school officials, ruling that they should be immune from being sued unless they blatantly violated ‘clearly established law.’” 

The New York Times (6/26, A24) editorializes, “In an important victory for students’ rights, the Supreme Court ruled, 8-to-1, Thursday that school officials acted unconstitutionally when they strip searched a 13-year-old girl. The majority was too willing to find that in this particular case the officials involved were immune from liability. But the decision still sends an important message to schools about the need to respect their students’ privacy when they conduct investigations.”

Student strip search ruled unconstitutional

In a surprising victory for student’s rights, the United States Supreme Court today issued an opinion ruling that the strip search of a 13-year-old middle school student Savana Redding was unconstitutional. You can view our previous posts on this case by clicking here and here. This is a very good ruling for student’s rights and upholds the principle that their rights do not end at the schoolhouse door. It further provides clarity to school district in just how far they can reasonably go in an effort to make their free of drugs.

The opinion was authored by retiring Justice David Souter, perhaps one of his last opinions as a Justice. You can find a complete copy of the opinion by clicking here.

The Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the student, finding that the mere suspicion of finding a small quantity of ibuprofen was unreasonable and did not justify the search in her underwear. In so finding, the court determined that the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion to the student. As the Court ruled: “What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”

The Court went on to describe the embarrassment and humiliation suffered by the student because of the search.

Savana’s subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation (required by the Fourth Amendment standard) is indicated by the consistent experiences of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure.

The Court made it clear that searches of this nature require “the support of reasonable suspicion of danger or of resort to underwear for hiding evidence of wrongdoing before a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts. The meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions.”

Only Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the school in the case. Justice Thomas continued his consistent opposition to such individual rights, particularly when invoked by students. In one line, he wrote “[p]reservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution. And, common sense is not a judicial monopoly or a constitutional imperative.”