WHY WON'T THE ACLU FIGHT FOR FREE SPREECH for EDUCATORS?

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2012

Is the ACLU actively supporting the suppression of free speech in schools?

    

Originally Published on the
San Diego Education Report Blog



By Maura Larkins

Why is the San Diego ACLU trying to silence free speech for teachers at the same time that it is protecting free speech for students (protecting free speech for all is one of its major stated purposes.) I understand why school attorneys want to keep the public unaware of what goes on behind closed doors in our schools, but why is ACLU attorney David Loy so interested in helping them?

I have long wondered if the ACLU was doing California Teachers Association little favors by refusing to take free speech cases for teachers. The recently-retired CTA head counsel Beverly Tucker had previously worked for the ACLU.

I got my answer on April 28, 2010 (see email below from David Loy). Yes, I learned, the ACLU definitely tries to silence teachers who don't speak through the union.

I attended the Annual Membership meeting of the San Diego ACLU today, and listened to ACLU attorney David Loy boast about how the ACLU had protected student free speech.

I asked him, "What about free speech for teachers?"

Mr. Loy responded with only one case, Johnson v. Poway, a case in which the ACLU supported a teacher who draped huge banners with religious admonitions across his classroom. The ACLU's victory in the district court was overturned by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal:

"We thus reverse and remand with instructions that the district court vacate its grant of injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as its award of damages, and enter summary judgment in favor of Poway and its officials on all claims. Johnson shall bear all costs. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(3)."

Daniel R. Shinoff, Jack M. Sleeth, Jr. (argued), Paul V. Carelli, IV, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC, San Diego, California, for defendants-appellants Poway Unified School District, et al

David Blair-Loy, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, California, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties in Support of plaintiff (Johnson)

Apparently California Teachers Association didn't take part in this case.

Neither David Loy nor Kevin Keenan could think of another case in which the ACLU had defended freedom of speech for teachers, but they noted that the ACLU frequently defends the free speech rights of law enforcement officers. Is this perhaps because the police unions don't donate to the ACLU like the teacher unions do?

Even Lori Shellenberger, the San Diego ACLU's "civic engagement" attorney, is vehemently uninterested in free speech for teachers. She spoke at the Annual Membership meeting about the voting rights workshops she held for parents throughout the school district, and giving parents the chance to speak about what they wanted from schools. I told Ms. Shellenberger, "What good are voting rights when parents don't know what is going on in schools? Democracy requires an informed electorate. You want to expand parent participation, but you keep parents ignorant by silencing teachers who know what's going on in schools." Ms. Shellenberger said she wasn't interested in free speech. Her associate Vince Hall specifically told me he wasn't interested in my letter to the ACLU board.

It would seem to me that Shellenberger and Hall are unlikely to improve schools unless they're willing to work toward transparency in schools, to reveal the secret life of schools. They are basically asking parents to stand up and address the powers behind the curtain of secrecy in schools in the manner in which Dorothy, the Tin Man and friends addressed the Wizard of Oz. The ACLU wants to make sure the curtain is not pulled back revealing a charlatan pulling strings.

Interestingly, Mr. Keenan is convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule the Ninth Circuit. "We always win," said Kevin Keenan. If the ACLU wins in the U.S. Supreme Court, it will not be with the aid of the civil libertarians on the court, I believe. It will be with the aid of those who want the U.S. to be a Christian nation. Mr. Keenan's goal is apparently to win, not to stick to the ACLU's principles. He spends years trying to get the cross taken down from Mount Soledad in San Diego, only to turn around and try to get it erected (figuratively speaking) in a classroom in Poway.

Not so. The ACLU tried to silence my website discussions about Stutz law firm, which represented the school district in this case. The Court of Appeal didn't go along with the ACLU's position, ruling instead thatan injunction completely silencing my discussion of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz was "exceedingly unconstitutional."

Mr. Keenan bemoaned the fact that the San Diego Zoo has more members that the ACLU does, even when counting all ACLU members in the entire country. The reason might be that the ACLU compromised its principles a bit too often, pushing out ordinary people who demand equal treatment with the good old boys and girls in the ACLU power structure. In fact, Mr. Keenan said to me, "I'm surprised you're still a member." I'm not the one who has a problem with equal treatment for everyone, Mr. Keenan. But I'm curious, how many ordinary people has the ACLU intimidated into giving up their civil rights? They tried to get me to take down my website, but I didn't think much of their exhortations.

Mr. Loy tried to get me to obey an obviously unconstitutional injunction:

from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow anyone - a government official or a private person - to disobey a court order because they believe it is illegal. Under the law, the proper course is to seek appellate review of an order, and/or a stay of the order,rather than to disobey it. The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...
David

Mr. Loy must also have known I was not legally required to de-publish the information about Stutz law firm on my website while the injunction was under appeal. (The mandative aspects of an injunction are staying during that time.) Either Mr. Loy was shockingly ignorant of the law, or he was intentionally deceiving me about the law to protect Stutz law firm when he said, “The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...”. Why would he do this? To earn “civility” awards from the Bar Association? As a sort of trade-off of free speech rights, helping Dan Shinoff silence a teacher in exchange for Mr. Shinoff’s agreeing to settle student speech cases? To please donors to the ACLU who care less about education than they do about preserving the power of certain individuals in schools?

The Court of Appeal didn’t agree with Stutz law firm and the ACLU; on August 5, 2011 it ruled that the injunction Mr. Loy wanted me to obey was “exceedingly unconstitutional.” Of course, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that the injunction was unconstitutional when he insisted that I must obey it.

But here’s the larger question: why did the ACLU board support Mr. Loy’s actions?

JUDGE JAMES STIVEN

I asked this question of ACLU board member Hon. James Stiven. He said, "I'm not getting involved because I'm a part of this organization." Wait a minute. Isn't that exactly why he has an obligation to get involved? He's on the board! He's in charge!

I said, "So if ACLU lawyers do something hostile to civil rights, you wouldn't intervene?"

He said, "I don't know that they have done anything wrong."

I said, "Yes you do. You're a judge."

Here's what they've done wrong:

1) To start with, David Loy aided and abetted a violation of my constitutional rights. I believe he intentionally gave me false legal advice in an effort to silence me.

2) The San Diego ACLU seeks and gets money by false advertising. I have heard ACLU speakers around town repeating what Kevin Keenan said at the 2012 Annual Membership meeting, "We guarantee rights for all people, not just the people we like. We stand up for equal protection of all people."

3) The above tactics have been approved at the highest levels of the San Diego ACLU. The San Diego ACLU Board knows about and tacitly approves the above actions.

San Diego Education Association Places Executive Director on Administrative Leave

The San Diego Education Association’s board of directors placed executive director Craig Leedham on paid administrative leave. Will Carless of Voice of San Diego has the story. As of today, no one from the union would explain the reasons behind the move. No one is talking on the record. Off the record, people who know Leedham describe him as ”nasty,” “aggressive,” “profane” and “paranoid.” 

Accurate or not, none of those attributes is sufficient to get you booted from a high-ranking position in one of the nation’s largest teacher union locals. Something very specific needs to have happened, and I suspect we’ll learn what it was before long. 

The union confirmed Tuesday afternoon that Leedham had been placed on leave. “San Diego Education Association Executive Director Craig Leedham is on paid administrative leave. It is inappropriate for further comment at this time about what is an internal matter,” President Bill Freeman said in a brief statement.

Leedham held several positions at various levels of the Wisconsin Education Association Council before taking a staff job with SDEA in 2006.

 “Teachers are telling us, they have the lowest level of job satisfaction in more than two decades and that a growing number are planning to leave the profession."

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers.

WASHINGTON— Student Success Is Jeopardized when Teachers, Schools Are Denied Tools and Resources Critical to Teaching and Learning. Further, public opinion has a lasting negative effect on those of us who have chosen the Avocation of Education. According to “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: 'Teachers, Parents and the Economy.” “... budget cuts to public schools and the demonization of teachers have taken a toll on teachers’ job satisfaction and that jeopardizes student success."

More often than ever we hear educators as the root of all evil in public education. But this survey tells us what teachers themselves are thinking, and it’s very sobering. “Teachers are telling us they have the lowest level of job satisfaction in more than two decades and that a growing number are planning to leave the profession, according to Weingarten.

“It’s not surprising that the most satisfied teachers are those who have support; they are treated as professionals, are given opportunities for professional growth, teach in communities where parents and educators collaborate to improve teaching and learning, and have job security. Sadly, at a time when we need to recruit and retain talented teachers and prepare kids for the knowledge economy, the teaching profession is becoming less attractive and more difficult.

“We need to pay attention when the teachers most likely to be dissatisfied are those with at-risk students—students who have the most needs but the fewest resources, at school and at home, because of the economic crisis. Teachers consistently say they need the tools, resources and time to improve teaching and learning—the same things that teachers in top-performing countries receive virtually without fail. U.S. teachers are frustrated with unrelenting cuts in budgets, elimination of arts and after-school programs, larger class sizes, and accountability systems that over-rely on student test scores. This should call into question the obsession with cutting funding for public education and health and family services children and parents rely on.

“The report’s silver lining is that there’s more engagement among parents, teachers and community groups to help students succeed.

“This report provides a commonsense road map for what we need to do to build successful schools: respect teachers, engage parents and the community, and, even in tough times, provide the programs and resources necessary to ensure high-quality public schools." 

Some key findings from “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Teachers, Parents and the Economy”:

• Teacher satisfaction has decreased by 15 points since “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher” measured job satisfaction two years ago, now reaching the lowest level of job satisfaction seen in the survey series in more than two decades.
• This decline in teacher satisfaction is coupled with large increases in the number of teachers who indicate they are likely to leave teaching for another occupation, and in the number who do not feel their jobs are secure.
• Teachers with high job satisfaction are more likely to feel their jobs are secure and say they are treated as professionals by the community. They are also more likely to have adequate opportunities for professional development, time to collaborate with other teachers, more preparation and supports to engage parents effectively, and greater involvement of parents and their schools in coming together to improve the learning and success of students.
• More than three-quarters of teachers have faced budget cuts in their schools in the last year.
• Two-thirds of teachers report that their schools have had layoffs of teachers, parent/community liaisons or other staff in the last year.
• Nearly three in 10 teachers indicate that there have been reductions or eliminations of health or social services in their schools.
• Six in 10 teachers report that the average class size in their schools has increased.
• One-third of teachers also indicate that educational technology and materials have not been kept up to date to meet student needs.
• Students report greater parent engagement in their education compared with students 25 years ago. Two-thirds of today’s students report that they talk about things that happen at school with their parents every day, compared with four in 10 in 1988.
• There also has been a threefold increase in the number of students who report their parents visit their schools at least once a month, up from 16 percent in 1988 to 46 percent today.

It is Easy to Fire an Educator!

It is Easy to Fire an Educator!

The board minutes simply state“resigned for personal reasons.”

Moreno Valley, CA. Its a shame and ethically undefendable that Assistant Superintendent of HR, Henry Voros does not afford the same standard of proof with a dozen or more employees (all of whom are at the top of the salary scale and suspended without pay and without cause or due process) as Dr. White endeavors toward Board Trustee Mike Rios in her statement. (see Below.) I could not agree more though I don't care for Rios as a person. "Due Process" as Board Trustee Harold "Rick" Sayre mentioned.


Then again, is his sad little way, Voros is as much driven by personality dysfunction as is Rios. Harold “Rick” Sayres is also driving this back door effort to break the employees contract and their collective will to dessent or question administration. Via the conceit of these two self serving individuals they reduce payroll.

Who said it’s hard to fire a teacher? Its easy: conjure up any reason, refuse to follow state education department regulations for disciplining educators, Ignore Education Code and State Labor law, and Government Code, then suspend without pay. Done! Effectively fired at the date of suspension!

Voros has seen the actuarial table that shows the number of educators that will just leave (or quit) far out ways the number who will fight. There by producing an immediate half-million dollar savings to the district's publically inflatted bottom line. Those educators who are willing to fight, sometimes to the appellate level usually win, which costs the district hugely in the short run. However, the district doesn't have to disclose documentation to the press or public regarding these cases because they 
can claim confidentiality of the former employee.

The board minutes simply “resigned for personal reasons.”

CTA seems powerless or unwilling to effectively put a stop this trend. Last year was the implementation year for MVUSD. SO FAR, this tactic appears to be working without substantial resistance. 

THOSE WHO VICTIMIZE CHILDREN ARE USUALLY NOT STRANGERS

By Ernie Allen, President and CEO

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

The recent events at Penn State University and Syracuse University serve as reminders that the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is an all-too-present fact of modern life.  Yet, millions of Americans do not believe that this problem exists at all.  Why?

Overwhelmingly, the child victims do not tell.  Leading scholars and researchers tell us that at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized in some way before they reach the age of 18, and just 1 in 3 will tell anybody about it.  These are America’s hidden victims.  We have made progress as a nation in attacking this problem but even today, two out of three child victims suffer in silence.  They don’t tell Mom, they don’t tell Dad, they don’t tell anybody.

Millions doubt the existence of these heinous crimes for another reason.  The offenders do not match society’s stereotype.  Most Americans want to believe that someone who would prey upon a child sexually is evil-looking, a menacing, frightening stranger.

Yet, we have learned that most often those who victimize children are not strangers to the child, they are known to the child.  They seek out legitimate access to the child.  We should never be shocked when someone who abuses a child is a volunteer or employee of a youth-serving organization, or a school, or a daycare center, or many other settings that provide easy, low-risk access to children.  That is why the leading child-serving organizations have taken bold steps to do background screening of their staff and volunteers, and then monitor and supervise the interactions between adults and children.

In monitoring sex offender treatment groups and programs, one hears a chilling word, “grooming.”  Most often, these offenders who prey upon children do not snatch their victims randomly from the streets, they groom their victims, win their confidence and trust through friendship, kindness, and then they violate it.  In so many of these cases, the child is made to feel responsible, like it is his or her fault.  And the child is often intimidated or threatened by this person of trust and authority.

Even if they decide to tell, will anyone listen to them?  Will anyone understand?  These children feel that no one will believe them even if they do speak out, and too many adults simply do not listen to or understand what children try to tell us.

The offenders are not dirty, menacing strangers, they are respectable citizens – doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, police officers.  Often they are people who outwardly show deep and enduring commitment to helping children in need.

What can you do?  What can every citizen do?  First, communicate with your children and empower them.  Make sure that they understand that you love them, trust them, believe them and that if anyone ever touches them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable, they should tell you or a trusted adult.

Second, the first line of defense is a vigilant public.  If you see it, know about it or suspect it, report it.  Call your local police and then call 1 (800) THE LOST or report it to www.cybertipline.com, at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

The sexual exploitation of children is not a problem that only happens somewhere else.  It is happening in big cities and small towns across America.  Thousands of children fall victim to sexual exploitation every year.  We need to do more.  Because every child deserves a safe childhood. 

This commentary first appeared in the Opinion Section on FoxNews.com on 12/09/2011

This isn't "No Tolerance." It's More Like " Mo Ignorance!"

Half of Texas' Students Suspended, Study Finds

By Nirvi Shah

 Edited by I, Praetorian; MA, PPS, PVC, ATM

Using discipline records of nearly 1 million Texas middle and high school students that cover much of the last decade, researchers found that more than half of them were suspended or expelled at least once between 7th and 12th grades, that the punishments were applied unevenly among students of different races, abilities, and schools, and that students disciplined with these methods were more likely to repeat a grade or drop out of school than students who were not punished in the same way.

The study, unveiled Tuesday by the Council of State Governments Justice Center in Bethesda, Md., and the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University, involved the discipline and criminal records of all Texas students who were 7th graders in 2000, 2001, and 2002, and tracked all of them through one year past the date when they would have graduated with their original class.

In the study, “Breaking Schools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement,” researchers found that of the half a million times students were suspended or expelled, only 3 percent of those suspensions or expulsions were for behavior Texas law requires be punished that way. The rest were at the discretion of school officials.

A newly released report casts doubt on whether increased suspensions and expulsions are getting the right results in Texas public schools.

Although the study involved just one state, the authors argue that it has implications for the rest of the country because Texas has the second-largest public school system in the country and one where almost two-thirds of students are nonwhite.

The goal of the study was to prompt policymakers everywhere to look closely at school discipline.

“We hope other states will follow Texas’ lead and put their systems under similar scrutiny,” said Michael D. Thompson, director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Justice Center. He raised a key question he said state education leaders should ask themselves: “Is our state’s school discipline system getting the desired results?”

The study found that the average number of days on which students missed at least some class time due to a disciplinary incident was two days for out-of-school suspension, 27 days for a placement at an alternative school, and 73 days if they were placed in a juvenile justice program.

While the numbers gleaned from analyzing student discipline in Texas may be shocking, the state’s rate of expulsions and out-of-school suspensions, at 6.9 percent, is lower than that of some other states, including California, at about 13 percent, and Florida, at about 9 percent.

Repeat Offenders

One statistic uncovered by the analysis of Texas discipline and juvenile justice records was that 15 percent of students were punished by suspension or expulsion 11 or more times. Those repeat actions make the effectiveness of those types of punishments questionable, Mr. Thompson said.

“Seeing how common it is for students to be suspended or expelled ... we probably can do better,” Mr. Thompson said. Also, the study raises concerns about how nearly half the students disciplined 11 or more times also were in contact with the Texas juvenile justice system, raising the specter of the so-called “school-to-prison” pipeline.

In addition, at schools within Texas with similar demographics, the use of the punishments varied widely, “indicating, I think, that it’s possible by relying less on suspensions and expulsions to reduce juvenile justice involvement and improve academic performance,” he said.

The Texas Education Agency, which helped the researchers match students’ school discipline and juvenile justice records, said the report highlighted some important weaknesses in Texas schools.

“It can be painful to look at numbers that aren’t flattering,” said Suzanne Marchman, a spokeswoman for the agency. But whether the report triggers individual schools to look at their discipline systems or drive policy at the legislative level is an open question. “No one wants a drop out,” Ms. Marchman said. “It brings up that dialogue: How can we address this issue at hand?”

In particular, if students’ punishment entails being sent to an alternative setting or juvenile justice setting, school districts need to be sure the teaching at those schools is high quality, she said.

“School districts need to take a closer look at the level of instruction that’s taking place at these alternative settings when [students are] punished so when [students] are released back to districts they’re not behind academically and they’re not frustrated,” she said, triggering a cycle of misbehavior that sends a student back to one of those alternate settings.

However, the agency also wanted to offer one cautionary note about interpreting the study.

“It gives the impression that 60 percent of the students in Texas are criminals or badly behaved,” Ms. Marchman said. But because of discrepancies in how punishment is administered between schools and districts, some students might be suspended for an infraction such as wearing flip flops or tank tops on the first offense while another school might give students several chances first.

In recent years, Texas has taken steps to address the way students are disciplined, and the report’s authors said lawmakers and Gov. Rick Perry were supportive of their work. The Texas Legislative Budget Board recently examined six school districts’ disciplinary practices, and the Texas legislature has changed some state laws pertaining to punishing students. For example, “persistent misbehavior” is no longer a reason for expulsion; school districts are now required to consider mitigating factors such as self-defense and a student’s disability before making a disciplinary decision; and the state education department had to create minimum standards for the disciplinary alternative education programs students are required to attend.

At the same time, other behavior violations have been added to the list of things for which school districts must or can punish students, including sexting and bullying.

Also recently, the state has begun offering training to districts interested in learning about positive discipline methods, and a pilot program this year is using statewide data to document student achievement and measure the effectiveness of specific professional development programs and activities.

Discipline Disparities Some groups of students were more vulnerable to suspension or expulsion than others, the study found. For example, 75 percent of African-American students were expelled or suspended, compared to 50 percent of white students. Also, 75 percent of students with disabilities were suspended or expelled, compared with 55 percent of students without a disability. Students classified as having an emotional disturbance were more likely to be suspended or expelled, while students with autism or mental retardation were less likely than students without disabilities to be punished the same way.

The report didn’t make specific policy recommendations, but noted the gradual toughening of school discipline policies nationwide, triggered in part by a spate of school shootings in the 1990s. The 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act requires schools that accept federal money to expel students for one year if they bring a weapon to school. A few years later, many school districts started adopting zero-tolerance discipline policies toward drugs, alcohol, and violent behavior. Some 79 percent of schools had these policies in place by 1997. While expulsion for some students means attending an alternative school, as it does in Texas, in some states, students are simply out of school altogether as they serve their punishment term.

An American Psychological Association study in 2006 found that zero-tolerance policies may negatively affect academic outcomes and increase the chances of a student dropping out. While Mr. Thompson said the Texas study isn’t strictly focused on the zero-tolerance discipline, that practice is part of a larger discussion about student discipline policy. “We look forward to launching a national project to identify policy strategies ... to get better outcomes for these kids,” he said.

Vol. 30, Issue 37

The Cost of Courage