California Business Litigation Blog

The American Civil Liberties Union has been called on by a school librarian and two high school students in Tennessee. The students believe that the school's blocking of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (commonly called LGBT) issues is particularly troublesome because it does not allow students to gain information from both sides of issues, as well as limits their rights to obtain needed information.

In Tennessee, some 107 school districts have an Internet filtering software program that stops LGBT content from being displayed on school computers. This software, called Educational Networks of America filters content according to the settings selected by the district.

Because of the filtering, high quality and nationally established websites including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Human Rights Campaign and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gay's websites cannot be accessed.

Enter a school librarian named Karyn Storts Brinks from Fulton High School. She tried to improve the situation and change the rules, to no avail. The problem with the software is that it only allows students to get one side of the story even though the contents are in the public forum now. While it does not allow students to visit these websites, considered legitimate resources, it does allow for students to visit websites encouraging reparative therapy which has been labeled dangerous by the American Medical and Psychiatric Associations.

One student tried to access information for LGBT students on scholarships available. Others have used it to research current debates in the public venue. There is no law, federal or state wide that requires such a block. The state law does require the blocking of material deemed obscene or harmful to minors.

The hope is that with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union, there will be a solution put in place to aid these students.

In this session of the Supreme Court, there will be several cases heard in the educational field. One of which is based on the English language learners, or ELL, courses available in the state of Arizona. The case, Horne vs. Flores is a disagreement by several groups, often split along political party lines. The case involves the amount of funding for such courses and the legal requirements of the state to provide for such courses.

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 states that states need to provide appropriate action to provide for equal education to all students, regardless of their origins and nationalities. Yet, in Arizona, the claim is that there was a lack of funding for English language learners instructional methods. The law states, specifically, that every state must, "take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impeded equal participation by its students in instructional programs."

In 2006, a law passed that increased per pupil ELL funding. In 2007, a judge from the U. S. District stated that the law did not go far enough to provide for the programs in that it only went for providing $444 per pupil in ELL education up from $365 per pupil. Further, the law cut off funding for students who remained in such courses beyond two years. The judge ruled that the state's ELL funding was in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.

The case gets further complex when the No Child Left Behind Act, a federal act, is taken into account. The state's ELL law requires an offset of funds from the federal government to districts, but runs the risk of reducing the amount that the state can obtain from the No Child Left Behind Act.

A boy named Jarron Draper started his education like any other child, but fell behind as a seven-year-old child. At that age, he was doing poorly and needed the school to provide him with help. Although his teacher recommended that the child be tested to determine what was causing his academic problems, nothing was done. Teachers requested this help in 1995, 1996, and twice in 1997. Throughout this time, the school continued to provide basic education and often isolated the child from functional exercises that could have improved his education.

Then, in 1998, Draper was tested and the test revealed that he was failing because of a specific learning disability. At that time, it was evident he had clear signs of dyslexia but these were not addressed by the school system. He was placed in a restrictive classroom from 1998 through 2003. When he entered high school, he had not improved and in fact was struggling at early elementary levels. How does a boy at the age of 13 have only a third grade education?

Later, he was determined that Draper suffered from a low average range of intelligence, a far upper level compared to that of which he was diagnosed in 1998. This means that he did have the ability to learn and he could have been taught, if the school system would have taken steps to test for the disability and provided appropriate education for him.

Unfortunately, although parents recommended aid several times from the school, it would take the courts to intervene before the boy would be given the help he needed. By the time he was in the 12th grade, he still struggled with elementary level education (although the school had thrown him back into the same classes as other high school kids.) The courts ruled that Draper was not provided an effective education under state law by the Atlanta Independent School System. And, although the school tried to appeal the case, it was determined that the school must give him extensive private aid or pay for a private school.

Up to 20 percent of students drop out because they do not have legal representation to help them fight school failures. Draper did have this, but it is worrisome to think of what would happen to students who do fall through the cracks.

In 2006, Foothill High School graduate Brittany McComb took to the podium to recite her valedictorian speech. During the speech to her Henderson Nevada classmates, she made several comments that administrators state strayed from her preapproved speech. Due to the content of that portion of her speech, Miss McComb believed she was being censored unfairly and that her First Amendment Rights were being violated. And that, took her to court.

In her speech, she made the following statement, "God's love is so great that he gave his only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and our relationship with him could be restored." At that point, her microphone was unplugged and the audience was unable to hear the rest of her speech. The video of the commencement has been on YouTube for two years and has since been viewed more than 35,000 times.

McComb learned this month that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would no longer hear her case. The panel of three judges issued a memo reversing a federal judge decision from 2007 not to grant a district motion to dismiss the case. While they can approve, McComb's attorney did not believe their chances were good. The panel stated that they did not believe the school violated her right to free speech by not allowing the "proselytizing graduation speech" to continue.

Cyperbullying is the act of threatening individuals in some manner through electronic means. Bullying in general is something that many students have faced over their school life and now, it has moved to the Internet. A good example of what is happening is with the website Facebook, a very popular, social network geared towards connected people.

Facebook users can create "hate groups" in which some students are using to mock, harass or otherwise harm users. This has lead to situations in which students are bullying other students not on school grounds, but through the Interent. The problem here is that there is no one group that is considered ultimately responsible for fixing this form of bullying.

The State of California passed Assembly Bill 86, which defines cyberbullying, but some believe it does not go far enough. Should police be involved in the situation, to handle these types of situations? Or, should the school be responsible? In some cases expressing cyberbullying, schools are often unable to monitor children off school grounds and yet try to stop cyberbullying anyway.

Some parents disagree with this. They do not want schools monitoring their children's computers or interacting with children outside of the classroom atmosphere. Parents themselves are often unable to monitor children close enough due to groups like Facebook, which makes it very easy for kids to come together online without their parent's knowing. Take this a step farther and some could blame social groups like Facebook, which does not have stricter requirements. Should the website stop kids from cyberbullying? They often do not realize such groups exist until it is brought to their attention, which rarely happens soon enough.

An example of this happened in California's Palo Alto school where a group of kids created a Facebook group that was called "I Hate Tyler" which was specifically targeted towards a student at Jordan Middle School. Over 100 members joined the group, which was created after the boy posted a video of himself singing on another popular site YouTube.

The question remains. Who is responsible for policing children who participate in cyberbullying?

Continue reading "Cyberbullying: Schools, Websites, and Parents Go Head To Head" »

Parents in St. Augustine, Florida, have filed a lawsuit against Webster Elementary School. The parents are upset about a recent incident in which their third grade children were made to sing a religious themed song. The song was part of the school's end of the year program.

The children began singing the song, "In God We Still Trust" by country group Diamond Rio a month prior to the lawsuit being filed. The group of parents believe that the song interferes with the parent's rights to raise children according to their own beliefs.

When one parent complained about the song, St. John’s County School District Superintendent Dr. Joseph Joyner pulled the song from the program. Hours before the filing of the lawsuit, the entire program was cancelled. Parents filing the suit claim that they are still entitled to damages due to the fact that their children were forced to learn the religious song. They claim that the school should not have provided the children with the song, because they feel the district should bar any religious instruction during school time, which they claim the song represents.

Some of the song's lyrics appear in the image above: (copyright Diamond Rio):

The lawsuit claims that the song's message is that God is part of American history and therefore individuals should fight attempts that try to secularize society.

The attorney for the school board states that singing a song that is like this is different than praying in school. In the past, schools have been allowed to sing religious songs. He claims that just singing a song does not mean that the school is endorsing the religion.

On an average school day in 2007, a high school junior named Eric Mohat decided he would come home and follow the advice given to him by a classmate. He shot himself, committing suicide because of the bullying that tormented him in the months and years prior. His parents have filed a lawsuit against the school.

The school, located in Mentor, Ohio, allegedly knew of the bullying and did little to nothing to stop it, his parents claim. William and Janis Mohat filed the lawsuit against Jacqueline A. Hoynes, Joseph Spiccia (school officials) and Thomas Horvath (a math teacher) who they believe knew that their son was being bullied.

Mr. and Mrs. Mohat state that their son was very gentle and was the type of child to enjoy theater and music. He was tormented by bullies, in particular there were several in his math class, which was taught by Mr. Horvath. The teacher was also a sports coach at the school. These bullies called him various inflammatory names, and the teacher did nothing to stop the behavior. One day, one of the students told Eric to go home and shoot himself. That is just what he did.

The parents are not looking for money in this case but want the school to establish an anti bully program that would stop such bullying from happening. The school needed it, as in the same year as Eric's suicide, three other classmates committed suicide. All of those deaths were brought on by bullying as well.