no random drug searches for Washington schools

I'm quite pleased that our state's Supreme Court stood up to the feds and upheld our own Constitution, which more strictly safeguards our right to privacy.

The decision involved athletes who sued the Wahkiakum School District in 1999 after the district began requiring students to undergo urine tests if they wanted to participate in sports. If the tests indicated drug or alcohol use, the student was suspended from sports but wasn't reported to police.

At the time, officials in the Southwest Washington school district felt there was a real problem with student drug use, including use among athletes. Public surveys named youth substance abuse as the No. 1 problem there. That's not enough to allow drug testing of a student when there's no reason to suspect he or she is using drugs, the court ruled unanimously.

"The justices concluded, as we had contended, that it violates the state Constitution to require a student to give their urine without any reason to believe they've done anything wrong," said Doug Honig, a spokesman for the ACLU of Washington, which represented the students and their parents.

Students don't deserve random drug testing, especially not the students who are least likely to abuse drugs. Every now and then, law and common sense collide. This is one of those rare times.

educational legislation: 2007 House Bills in review

In 2007, regional media types paid all kinds of attention to the fate of various Washington State educational laws. Joint Resolution 4204, which passed by a Gregoire-thin margin to allow simple majorities for levies, was probably the best-known, while HB 2079 was the most controversial. But lots more were passed. Here are the highlights from the House's year in educational legislation. (I've focused on the elementary and secondary level, with a few postsecondary bills thrown in there as they relate to high school instruction. If I've missed one, let me know.)



Kevin's Law: ESHB 1050
IEP students must be allowed to walk in a grad ceremony with their peers, even if all they receive at the time is a "Certificate of Attendance."


Completing High School at a Community College: HB 1051
The most concise summary comes from Governor Gregoire's partial veto:

Sections 1 through 8 of this bill provide for the development of two pilot programs at community or technical colleges. The programs are intended to support certain students as they work to meet the State's academic standards in reading, writing, mathematics or science. For these students, demonstrating proficiency in one or more of these subjects is the final step in meeting their high school graduation requirements and obtaining a high school diploma. The legislation outlines the student eligibility and program criteria, authorizes the financial support, waives student tuition and fees, and provides for a study of the program's results in two years' time.

Section 9 of the bill creates and recognizes a new state certificate for high school students who do not meet the requirements for a high school diploma, the Certificate of Academic Completion (Certificate). The Certificate may be conferred by school districts to students who meet all state and local requirements for graduation with the exception of passage of one or more of the high school assessments in reading, writing and mathematics. Our students are working very hard to achieve the skills necessary for success in their endeavors beyond high school. By creating the Certificate of Academic Completion we will be sending a message to these students that they do not need basic skills required for the high school diploma. This is wrong.

Get Students Involved: HB 1052
This little bill provides greater access for middle and high school students to the Legislative Advisory Council, plus grants for students to participate in civic education competitions such as Model UN.


Postsecondary Opportunities: HB 1096
Globalization, according to the legislature, requires need-based grants for workers to gain certification or skills training in "high demand occupations" from community or technical colleges.


Book Savings For All: HB 1224
Community colleges were added to the ranks of institutions that must pursue policies that keep book and material costs down, or, at the very least, make options and alternatives publicly known.


Cash for Computers: HB 1280
If I understand this correctly, this bill allows districts to pay for major technology upgrades out of existing "capital projects" levies, instead of having to run a special techno-levy. (Another minor bill, HB 2357, would allow districts to use timber money for capital projects, too.)


Service Credit for ESAs: HB 1432
Might as well quote the bill itself:

Beginning in the 2007-08 school year, the calculation of years of service for occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, nurses, social workers, counselors, and psychologists regulated under Title 18 RCW may include experience in schools and other nonschool positions as occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, nurses, social workers, counselors, or psychologists. The calculation shall be that one year of service in a nonschool position counts as one year of service for purposes of this chapter, up to a limit of two years of nonschool service.

It's only for the salary schedule; retirement counts only school service.


Dealing With the Dropout Problem: HB 1573

Sections 1 through 7 of this bill provide for the development and implementation of a grant program that, through collaborative school district, family and community partnerships and services, support vulnerable students who are at risk of dropping out of middle or high school. The grant program will be called the Building Bridges Program.

This is perhaps the most ambitious attempt the state has made at reducing the dropout rate. I still see this as the problem at the high school level, come low or high WASL.


Defining a Counselor: HB 1670
Up until this year, for all legal intents and purposes, school counselors didn't exist. Now they do.


Agency Shop Fees Clarified: HB 2079
10 + 10 - 10 = 10. Now, which 10 is left? This bill says: not yours, shop fee payer, that the Supreme Court may be mollified. Whew. That was a dire emergency.


Add a Little Spice: HB 2154
Now ESD board members will come up for election in odd, rather than even, years. That oughtta bring out the vote.


Bonus Bonus: HB 2262
Become certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, collect $5,000--or more, if you teach in an impoverished district. For me, this was the incentive that tipped the scales away from ProCert to NBPTS. Apparently, a lot of other teachers feel the same way.


Investing in the Common Schools: HB 2396
On the same day she signed the Rainy Day Fund into law, Gregoire also allowed the state to invest its permanent common school fund in equities, in hopes that it would earn at a rate at least equal to inflation.


Killing Gainsharing: HB 2391
On that same day, gainsharing died, and teachers mourned.


Let's Have a Poet Laureate: HB 1279
Why not? By the way, it's Samuel Green.

funding lawsuit clears next major hurdle

Big news out of King County Superior Court:

Judge Michael Heavey wrote in an opinion attached to his order granting summary judgment that uneven distribution of state money to school districts violates the state constitution because it is not general and uniform, and violates the equal-protection rights of Federal Way teachers, students and taxpayers.

The judge said he expects the case to be appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. The state has 30 days to file an appeal. A call to the state attorney general's office seeking comment was not immediately returned.

The school district's lawsuit was filed in November 2006 against the state, the governor, the superintendent of public instruction and other officials.

Heavey, a former state legislator, said he believes lawmakers had been making progress toward a more equitable distribution of school money, but there is still some work to do. For example, most school districts get $32,746 from the state per teacher, although a few get as much as $4,000 more.

The state distributes school money based on the number of students in each district. Under a formula, the money is split among teachers, administrators and other staff, with employees paid within a range for each category.

"Because of the 'ranges,' there are 258 different funding levels for the state's 296 school districts," Heavey wrote.

He called the formula "arbitrary and wholly irrelevant" and said it was left over from an old system.

This is a tentative but satisfying victory for not just the WEA,who has pressed the suit forward, but for all Washington educators. If the lawsuit is appealed to the Supreme Court, which seems all but certain, and, bigger if, it succeeds, it becomes a matter of legislative remedy. That'll be interesting.

Update: In my sleep-deprived mind, I connected this lawsuit with the other state funding lawsuit, which is still in the works.

funding lawsuit moves forward

The lawsuit, which I mentioned earlier this week, is going to trial.

A King County Superior Court judge on Friday declined to rule on the merits of a lawsuit calling for an overhaul of the way the state pays for education, sending the matter toward a trial next June.

Judge Paris K. Kallas said too many facts were in dispute for her to grant a motion for summary judgment brought by a coalition of teachers, parents, community groups and school districts. The coalition wants to require the state to calculate exactly how much it costs to provide an adequate education for all pupils, then figure out a way to pay for it.

It's not the speedy outcome the plaintiffs were hoping for, but it'll guarantee a spate of publicity and, this blogger hopes, a well-reasoned outcome.

SVC Alumnus on Teachers Strikes

Via Northwest Bloggers, an interesting look at the question of whether or not teachers can legally go on strike. SVC Alumnus has some more thoughts on his home site.

In my district we're already preparing for the next round of contract negotiations this coming spring. It's an involved process that I look forward to sharing with you all as the year goes on!

if you can't legislate, litigate

The school funding lawsuit is in the news again. The heart of the matter:

The coalition says the state's education system relies on an outdated formula for allocating money that leaves schools financially strapped and unable to adequately educate children.

The state uses sales, business and state property taxes to pay 84.3 percent of what it costs to educate Washington's 1 million schoolchildren. The other 15.7 percent comes from local levies and some federal money, primarily for education of special-needs children.

The bulk of state dollars go to teacher salaries. The state also matches local bond money for school construction.

The coalition's lawsuit seeks to force the Legislature to pay 100 percent of the cost to educate K-12 students but does not suggest how. It also does not address higher education.

There's an important adjective missing: some. As in, some schools are doing just fine--they have a solid tax base and dedicated levy support. But others aren't. And that's the rub.

As litigation progresses, it could be affected by the upcoming election. If voters choose simple majorities for levies, the State may be able to argue that the major hurdle to funding equity has been knocked down.

class action lawsuit against alleged NEA retirement kickbacks

This is going to be very, very interesting.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Tacoma last week, seeks class-action status on behalf of at least 57,000 other teachers and school personnel who invested with the Valuebuilder plan offered by Security Benefit Life Insurance Co., of Topeka, Kan., and Nationwide Life Insurance Co., of Columbus, Ohio. In all, the union's members invested more than $1 billion since 1991, according to the complaint.

The fees and expenses charged by Nationwide and Security Benefit as part of the so-called 403(b) plan were far higher than those charged by comparable and better-performing plans available on the market, but the NEA and its for-profit subsidiary, the NEA Member Benefits Corp., accepted payments from the companies to endorse those retirement plans, the lawsuit said. The payments created a conflict of interest and cost NEA members tens of millions of dollars in lost retirement savings, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, it said.

Furthermore, in Valuebuilder's menu of investment offerings, Security Benefit and Nationwide only included funds that had paid to be listed, the lawsuit claimed.

Union leaders "should be endorsing plans because they're good plans, not because they're paid money to endorse those plans," one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Derek W. Loeser of Seattle, said Tuesday.

I've looked over many of the discounts on the NEA Member Benefits website. Some are good, others the same as deals you can get elsewhere. I've always thought it was up to me, though, to figure out the costs and benefits, not just to blindly trust that an educator's discount was the best possible deal.

Update: Welcome to visitors from Education in Texas, via the Carnival of Education. Washington Teachers is a fledgling group effort by--you guessed it--teachers in Washington State. Thanks for stopping by.

Spokane Schools District Joins Statewide Funding Lawsuit

From the June 28th Spokesman-Review:

Spokane Public Schools decided Wednesday to spend thousands of dollars trying to get millions more from the state.

The district’s board of directors voted unanimously to join the Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, a coalition of school districts, teachers, parents and community groups involved in a lawsuit against the state over the way education is funded.

The coalition, which filed the lawsuit in January, wants a King County Superior Court judge to declare that the state has failed to live up to its constitutional obligation, which defines education as its paramount duty.

Washington Learns and the Conley Report may have a shot at meaning something after all...

SCOTUS protects political speech

Today the Court refused to hear an appeal of a case that would be the first to test the latest free speech ruling. The background:

A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glass — but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the "chicken-hawk-in-chief" who was engaged in a "world domination tour."

After his suspension, Zachary Guiles returned to school with duct tape covering the offending images.

Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol.

An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt.

Alito's political speech exception was the controlling ruling. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is unacceptable, but "Bad Bush Hits Bong" is apparently okay.

Perhaps we pessimists have reason to be a little less pessimistic. (Outright optimism is a stretch.)

No bong hits, part II

As a self-proclaimed defender of student free expression rights, I'm certainly disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision to rule against Joseph Frederick in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

That said, I'm not exactly crestfallen, either.

The ruling is pretty narrow and seems to be focused almost exclusively on speech that promotes drug use. Justice Alito summed it up this way in his concurring opinion:

"Public schools may ban speech advocating illegal drug use," Alito wrote in his concurrence. "But I regard such regulation as standing at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits. I join the opinion of the Court with the understanding that [it] does not endorse any further extension."

I still think the court was a little silly in thinking that any reasonable person -- yes, even teenagers -- would think that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" means "Hey you! Go smoke pot!", but I can at least somewhat understand where it was coming from. Doesn't mean I agree with the decision, but I take comfort in knowing that the court took the time to acknowledge that this was a case about drug advocacy and not political or religious speech.

The key will be this: How broadly will administrators try to apply the decision? Although Hazelwood, at its core, is pretty vague, administrators have consistently misapplied even the most specific portions of the majority opinion and used the ruling as sweeping justification for squelching student speech.

The most troubling part for me is that the court has further extended what qualifies as "school sponsored." This was an event that took place outside of school hours and off school grounds. How will administrators and districts try and use this ruling to extend their power off campus? Will this extend to the electronic realm?

Time will only tell.

sorry, Jesus: no bong hits for you

Joseph Frederick has lost his free speech case.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

I've already written elsewhere:

While academics might posit that meaning is a function of the text, or of the author's intent, or of a transaction between author and reader mediated via text, when it comes to this case, school administrators are essentially reader response theorists. What matters isn't what Frederick wrote, so much as what effect it would have on its readers, no matter how nonsensical the message.

Chief Justice John "Stanley Fish" Roberts, writing for the Court, essentially adopted that hermeneutic.

Update: The opinion is here [pdf].

Update II: This is how the Court's thinking has evolved over time: from "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school" (the Tinker standard) to "inconsistent with the school's educational mission" (the ham-fisted administrator standard).

Update III: Law prof Eugene Volokh tries to understand Alito's ruling, which he sees as controlling the case.

Requa case raises interesting questions

This piece of news is almost a month old at this point, but I've been kicking it around in my head for quite a while now.

It centers around Gregory Requa, a student suspended for 40 days by the Kent School District for his involvement in the making of YouTube video that mocks one of his teachers. The suspension subsequently was upheld by a federal judge.

It's an interesting case as teachers, administrators and our courts grapple with the impact of online speech in the classroom; the pending decision on the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case will provide even more clarity about just how far off campus school officials can go to regulate student speech.

Requa's lawyers tried to make the claim that his suspension infringed on his First Amendment right to free speech, but the Kent School District said his suspension was only for the disruption caused in class in the making of the video: “The video depicted the conduct that was punished,” according to a district spokesperson.

Which leaves me with two questions.

1. Are they seriously trying to lead us to believe that the Kent School District always gives 40-day suspensions whenever a student makes a hand motion towards his nose (indicating his teacher smells bad), rabbit ears behind his teacher's head, and pelvic thrusting motions at her when she's not looking?
2. Do the really mean to imply that they would not have suspended Requa had the video only been footage of her cluttered class and shots of her backside, neither of which ostensibly disrupted the class?

Those of you that end up reading the blog with regularity will find that I am a ridiculously ardent defender of student free speech rights -- after all it's how Jim and I came to know each other in the first place -- and decisions such as this one scare me. The judge explained herself this way:

“The court has no difficulty in concluding that one student filming another student standing behind a teacher making ‘rabbit ears’ and pelvic thrusts in her direction, or a student filming the buttocks of a teacher as she bends over in the classroom, constitutes a material and substantial disruption to the work and discipline of the school.”

While noting that “the ability of students to critique the performance and competence of their teachers is a legitimate and important right,” Pechman said that a classroom devoid of inappropriate behavior is in the public interest.

Regarding the video, Pechman said, “The First Amendment does not extend its coverage to disruptive, in-class activity of this nature.”

While I don't disagree that having respectful and orderly classrooms is important, and I certainly wouldn't want to be the topic of a similar video, I wonder what kind of a precedent this sets for legitimate criticisms.

What if it simply had been footage of a teacher teaching poorly, interspersed with legitimate complaints about the classroom? Would the district acknowledge that with a suspension? Would Pechman strike down that suspension as unconstitutional?

Better yet, what if it had been an flier about what a terrible teacher a particular teacher is, then distributed it off school grounds. Would the district have forgiven such speech?

I seriously question whether they're punishing the speech or the medium.