Wednesday, July 16, 2008

9th Circuit Rules for Student in Strip-Search for Ibuprofen and Finds No Immunity for School Officials

Redding v. Safford Unified School District #1 [9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 7/11/08]
From the majority opinion in this 6-5 decision:
“On the basis of an uncorroborated tip from the culpable eighth grader, public middle school officials searched futilely for prescription-strength ibuprofen by strip-searching thirteen year-old honor student Savana Redding. We conclude that the school officials violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The strip search of Savana was neither “justified at its inception,” nor, as a grossly intrusive search of a middle school girl to locate pills with the potency of two over-the-counter Advil capsules, “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances” giving rise to its initiation. Because these constitutional principles were clearly established at the time that middle school officials directed and conducted the search, the school official in charge is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit for the unconstitutional strip search of Savana.”

Read the full decision.
Read the account in “The Recorder” [7/14/08].
See what those at another education law blog are saying.

From the dissent on the liability issue by Judges Gould and Silverman: “[A]lthough I think our ruling should be crystal clear that schools may not subject a student to a strip search under circumstances as presented here, and although the general principles in TLO and other cases are well established, I can understand how school officials, even though they made an erroneous decision, should have some insulation from liability before our declaration of how these principles applied to this case. The fact that the district court and a majority of a prior panel of our court thought, and some dissenting judges on this panel continue to think, the scope of the search reasonable to me says something about a lack of clarity in our law.”

From the LENGTHY dissent of Judges Hawkins, Kozinski, and Bea: “[The majority fails to] acknowledge the unique considerations present in the public school setting, including the need for informal and flexible disciplinary measures, and the considerable risk presented by drugs. The Opinion also yields two rules that sweep too broadly: (1) that an uncorroborated tip from a student facing punishment is insufficient to justify the search at issue; and (2) that the search was per se unreasonable because officials were only seeking prescription-strength ibuprofen….While “unblinking deference,” is certainly not called for, we should recognize that our normal, healthy skepticism of government authority must be reconciled with the realities of the school environment….School officials in this circuit are now on notice that it is unconstitutional to require a thirteen-year-old female honor student to remove her outer garments and shake her bra and underwear, partially exposing her breasts and pelvic area, in front of two female administrators in a private room when the object sought is prescription strength ibuprofen and the only direct evidence against her is the uncorroborated tip of a culpable classmate, and the girl searched has no disciplinary history but has been suspected of consuming and serving alcohol. This precise holding is the only thing officials can rely on.”

Questions I have:
1. What are school officials—who operate daily in “the realities of the school environment”—to take from this 6-5 decision? Especially since they would not have qualified immunity when such issues are apparently determined to be “clearly established.”
2. The second (and lengthy) dissent all but pleads for the U.S. Supreme Court to rework the liability analysis when they revisit (and possibly overturn?) Saucier v. Katz next term. How will that affect the daily workings of school administrators in difficult situations such as this?

Monday, July 14, 2008

"New Vision for Schools Proposes Broad Role"

Randi Weingarten, the incoming president of the American Federation of Teachers, says she wants to replace President Bush’s focus on standardized testing with a vision of public schools as community centers that help poor students succeed by offering not only solid classroom lessons but also medical and other services.

This indeed, as the article title in the Times says, is a "broad vision." The concern here is that we are expecting too much from a system that has a much narrower paradigm. It again raises the issue (raised below) of accountability: who would be responsible for the decisions that stray from the mere educational to the medical and beyond? Would a centralized model (as seems to be happening in Los Angeles) or a de-centralized model (where local school boards would be "in charge") be appropriate?

Friday, July 11, 2008

Algebra and Rigor in the Curriculum

I couldn’t wait a week to post on the fascinating debate around math curriculum in California. Currently, state-wide at least (see how one small community is fighting the math fight), the forces have coalesced around mandating 8th grade Algebra. And, as Dan Walters points out in today’s Bee, “Algebra row symbolizes wider issue,” issues such as “Who is in charge of educating the kids?” and, then, “How should we run public education?” are the real questions that lurk behind the Algebra question. (See what the public is blogging in the LA Times' "Homeroom" blog.)

In attempting to answer the first question, he interestingly did not mention the parents. (This mistake is pointed out by the many commentators to his article on the Bee website.) I think it is just an oversight by Mr. Walters, although he just might be taking sides, obliquely, in the home-school debate currently in the courts.

As to the question of “curriculum” rigor—and its joined-at-the-hip partner, “instruction”—which are often confused for one another in the public debate, the issue is interestingly being played out today in the Algebra debate with articles from Sacramento and San Diego, and then juxtapose these discussions with the mindset of the Orange County folks who are angry about the Advanced Placement results being impacted by cheating.

As you consider all of this, be sure and listen to a “Perspective” from KQED-FM (7/10/08) on a tough (and often-faced) choice confronted by a Washington High (S.F.) English teacher. All of this gives the reader interested in some of the issues faced by those on the front line of the "rigor" debate in California.

All in all it makes for a fine way to ease the way into a summer weekend. Enjoy!

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Welcome to California School Law blog of Rich Kitchens

July has brought some interesting ed law issues into the headlines again. For example, how a school board is supposed (or not supposed) to operate was implicated in Stockton, some school districts (such as Cupertino’s) are keeping an eye on enrollment,

At least we are not as bad as the evolution debate in Louisiana…or are we? There are severe cash problems in San Diego, school reform pits states against national governments, even in tiny Lagunitas, and the ever-present school discipline issues abound—in the New York as well as in Fresno. Free speech issues are different in California, say, than in Oregon, and bad teachers may be tough to fire anywhere. Then there is the home-schooling issue.

The point is that while many issues involving school law—particularly public school law—are unique to California, some issues cross state lines quite easily. We hope to get discussion going on any subject of interest involving public policy and education in California. Jump aboard and let us know what you are thinking. I will post every week and we hope to hear from you!