Vicarious consent

COURT DECISION

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that telephone conversations a father recorded between his daughter and the teacher he suspected of sexually abusing her will be admissible in court, writing that parents may record their children’s telephone conversations if it is necessary for a child’s welfare.

The 16-page ruling reverses a decision made by a Marshall County District Court judge, who ruled that recorded conversations of former teacher Jeffrey Spencer and his 13-year-old student were not admissible in Spencer’s sexual abuse trial.

Spencer, 44, was charged in September 2005 with sexual exploitation by a school employee, indecent contact with a child and lascivious acts with a minor after the girl’s father suspected the inappropriate relationship and tapped the phone, later discovering conversations of a sexual nature and taking the recordings to police.

Spencer has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Spencer’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress the recordings, arguing that neither Spencer or the girl consented to having their conversations tape-recorded, while prosecutors argued state the recordings of the telephone conversations do not violate Iowa code because the girl’s father can vicariously consent on her behalf to record the conversations between she and Spencer.

The court's decision written by Justice David Wiggins argues that while consent must be given to record such conversations, federal courts have made exceptions for guardians who have a “good faith, objectively reasonable basis for believing that it is necessary in in the best interest of the child” to consent on their behalf.

TT - The newspaper doesn't provide a link to the ruling.
It is State of Iowa vs. Jeffrey Lewis Spencer No. 50 / 06-0565

PLEA & SENTENCING (Sorta) September 17, 2008 - Spencer entered Alford pleas to charges of sexual exploitation by a school employee and lascivious conduct with a minor. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail - not prison. He will be eligible for work release. (He was also given probation, but the duration was not given in the story.)

"A parent should expect and be assured that when that parent sends a child off into a school environment, the child will be helped, not harmed," said Judge William Pattinson. "The child was entrusted to your care and you betrayed that trust."

However, the judge also acknowledged Spencer had a positive effect on many other children in the community and had the support of his family.

"I have no doubt but that you have done worlds of good in this community," he said.
Pattinson told Spencer he had originally been leaning toward a sentence of years of prison, but that he was persuaded after receiving additional information and hearing the testimony of his family.

TT - Spencer was 44 years old.

Court Ruling

Another blow against public integrity.

July 31, 2008 - Spokesman Review editor Steve Smith on "A stunning ruling."

By now, I hope you have seen the story today on the Washington Supreme Court ruling protecting the names of teachers who have been accused of sexual misconduct. (Link here)

It's a pretty amazing ruling. If I read it correctly, it even provides the districts cover if officials choose not to notify police agencies of accusations even though they are so-called mandatory reporters.

In my view, this is another example of bureaucrats being given the power to hold back information critical to the public.

Some will argue the ruling protects the privacy of the accused until charges are substantiated. But who decides the charges have been substantiated, or even properly investigated? [Emphasis ours.] And in cases of sexual abuse by teachers, publicity is often what brings victims forward to provide the substantiation?

If there is a balance to be struck, I believe it ought to be struck in the public interest. Read the dissent for more on that view.

In any event, this ruling, like other recent decisions against public disclosure, is sure to lead to calls for legislative action. But it will take real legislative oomph to overcome the powerful teacher lobby.

----------------------------------
The news article linked to states that the high court ruled Thursday that identifying teachers in unsubstantiated cases violates the teachers’ right to privacy. A lower court had previously ruled that the information should be disclosed in cases where school districts’ investigations were insufficient.
----------------------------------------
The case is:
Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue School District No. 405
docket number 78603-8.

Opinion here PDF
Dissent here PDF

Moreover, the majority’s analysis fails to account for one of the underlying purposes of the PRA—accountability of public agencies. Because the majority decides that a teacher’s identity is not disclosable where the misconduct is unsubstantiated, and rejects the idea that the adequacy of a school district’s investigation has any bearing on disclosure, the majority leaves school districts free to control whether an accused teacher’s identity must be released by controlling the scope and depth of its investigation.

Drawing the line for disclosure at records relating to unsubstantiated allegations fails to recognize the immense pressures on school districts. First, school districts come under pressure from the teachers and their associations to withhold teachers’ names. At the same time, if the school districts vigorously pursue allegations of sexual misconduct, they face the threat of lawsuits from students and their parents. - from pg. 11

A school district can effectively control whether an accused teacher’s identity must be released by reaching an agreement with the teacher exchanging resignation for silence. - from pg. 12.

Placing the power in the hands of school districts to control, to any extent, whether disclosure is required is incompatible with the PRA. - from pg. 14 [Bolding ours.]

Venice, FLORIDA

CONVICTION UPHELD

May 3, 2008 - The 2nd District Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of James LaMorte. He was the Venice, Florida high school teacher sentenced to 21 years for molesting male students twenty-five years earlier.

Prosecutors used an exemption in state law that allows a "public officer or employee" to be charged for "misconduct in office" as long as he is still in the job, or within two years after he leaves. LaMorte's appeal argued that law only applied to those who held public office, not school teachers, and that the statute of limitations ended four years after the crimes.

The three-judge panel determined that LaMorte's argument that the statute only applies to public officer holders was without merit. The statue included "employees" in a subsequent amendment. One concurring opinion and one dissenting opinion made it clear that the legislature should address concerns about the law.
----------------
The newspaper doesn't link to the decision, but the case is No. 2D06-4346 (James Peter LaMorte v State of Florida) and can be found here.

The Venice school district seems to have been plagued by problem teachers. TT entry.

CORRECTION to state in title field. Thank you. We got FL correct in the rest of it.

Tahlequah, OKLAHOMA

Feb 22, 2008 - Wrongful termination lawsuit results in a judge ordering school district to pay approximately $20,000 in attorney fees.

The case was originally filed Aug. 9, 2004, and was briefly removed to federal court.

[Special District Judge David] Nelson tried the case in December 2004 and ordered Weston’s reinstatement. The school district appealed Nelson’s decision, and an appellate court sent the case back to Nelson to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning his decision to reinstate Weston.

The appeals court reversed Nelson’s decision and sent the case back to the state court on Sept. 19, 2006. [Attorney Richard] O’Carroll entered the case Oct. 2, 2006, court records show. Weston’s request for a re-hearing before the appellate court was denied in December 2006.

Court records show the appellate court’s decision to reverse Nelson was vacated July 3, 2007, and Nelson’s decision was affirmed. The appellate court also granted an application by Weston for appellate attorney fees and ruled [Special District Judge David] Nelson was authorized to determine the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to Weston.

TT - The bottom line is that school districts can not fire a teacher for "instructional ineffectiveness and unsatisfactory teaching performance" without spending $200,000 or more and wasting three years, and even then, it becomes a legal football. The final irony is that the school district paid his salary for the three years, the legal fees for their own attorneys, and the costs of a replacement in the classroom, and now his legal fees.

If you want to know the convoluted legal process, the lawsuit is online.

The teacher may have been a perfectly fine employee but the decision to remove him from the classroom shouldn't be a political one that costs upwards of $250,000.

What taxpayers and parents should question is whether such legal protections should be provided for teachers and educators when there is no evidence that they are anymore professional than any other licensed professions that do not have similar protections. The only other employees who are similarly blessed are government employees, which ought to make most people ask, why is that? The temptation is to think it's because political patronage jobs resulted in such a low calibre of employee that the safeguards were there to prevent firing. Why educators should be a protected employee class is something that should be debated.

The absurd lengths that a school district must go to in order to fire an employee guarantees that no teacher will be fired for incompetence or even failure to show up for work. And it's your tax dollars. And your children.

Topeka, KANSAS

Being too smart for his own good.

Jan 27, 2008 - The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of former Kansas State professor Thomas E. Murray who was convicted in 2003 of the murder of his ex-wife, Carmen Ross, who also worked at Kansas State. Murray was sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole in 25 years.

Prosecutors were suspicious of Murray because of his statements in a nine-and-a-half hour interview with detectives the night his ex-wife was killed. Murray didn't even ask about how Ross died until two-and-a-half hours into the interview.

The court decision was unanimous.

"Although no one had informed the defendant how Carmin died, he told the police in his interview that he would not have done anything 'like they were suggesting' because he was a 'thinking man,'" said Justice Robert E. Davis, writing for a unanimous court.

"He explained that if he were going to commit a homicide, he would do it with an airborne poison 'or something really slick.' He later stated that he was 'having fun with this from a CSI perspective.'"

Police officers reported the murder was one of the most gruesome to take place in Douglas County.

---

STATE OF KANSAS v. THOMAS E. MURRAY Decision
It's worth reading if only to see how smart Murray thought he was.

A search of the defendant's computer revealed that he had run several searches between October 8, 2003, and November 10, 2003, including: "colorless and odorless poison"; "homicide"; "poisoning and colorless and odorless and murder and perfect and tasteless"; "murder for hire"; "how to hire an assassin"; "how to kill someone quickly and quietly"; "the best way to kill someone"; and "eyedrops and murder and csi."

His interview with police would make a hit comedy series skit.

New York City, NEW YORK

COURT DECISION

Jan 22, 2008 - State Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische has ruled that New York City Department of Education can proceed their investigation of whether field trips to Cuba by high school students and the department's employees violated any local laws.

The group that helped organize the trips - the Inter-Religious Foundation for Community Organization Inc., aided by the ACLU, tried to squash supoenas issued by Richard J. Condon, Special Vommissioner of Investigation for the city's Board of Education.

---

TT - The school is the Beacon School. Previous coverage of the investigation here. In 2006, the students took a trip to Venezuela to show "solidarity" with Hugo Chavez.

Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District site.

As well as the authority to issue supoenas, Special Commissioner Richard J. Condon can also arrest. The office recently released statistics on their 2007 investigations. PDF

San Diego, CALIFORNIA

ALL CHARGES DROPPED AFTER THREE TRIALS.

Sept 13, 2007 - A California appeals court by a 2-1 decision has reversed the guilty verdict against Thad Jesperson.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that Jesperson's attorney was ineffective and that misconduct was apparent in the presiding jurors.

Jesperson was accused of molesting eight students during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years at the elementary school. He was serving 15 years follow convictions in three separate trials in 2004.

Prosecutors could ask the state Supreme Court to review the decision, or they could put Jesperson on trial a fourth time.

The article does not provide a link, but the decision can be found here. (PDF) for the unpublished opinion.

Dec 4 - The same attorney accused of being ineffective during the trial represented Jesperson today in a bail hearing. The prosecutor indicated that another trial is planned. Bail was set at $100,000. Jesperson's wife hopes to raise the bail so he can be home for the holidays.

ALL CHARGES DROPPED Jan 18, 2008 - Prosecutors dropped the charges against Jesperson. Jurors across three trials struggled with the case. And each trial was tainted by juror misconduct, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

In the first trial, Jesperson was convicted of a single charge of molesting a student, but the jury deadlocked on 12 other counts.

In the second trial, he was convicted of one charge of molesting another student at a second trial but jurors deadlocked or acquitted him on several other charges.

Prosecutors tried him on the deadlocked charges, and in December 2004 convicted him on seven molestation counts, and two months later he was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

In September, 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego overturned all of the convictions.

ALL CHARGES DROPPED.

Appeal Denied

Appeal denied.

Jan 11, 2008 -

On Jan. 4, the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied the appeal of Thomas Harvey Matthews, former teacher in the Delaware Valley School District who was convicted on twenty-three separate charges in July of 2006. He was sentenced to eleven and one-half years to twenty-four years for crimes committed against former students.

Matthews’ conviction came after three different students testified how he touched them underneath their clothes while they were in his third-grade class. First Assistant Pike County District Attorney Bruce DeSarro, who prosecuted the case at trial, stated that “our community owes a great debt of gratitude for the bravery these young people showed in coming forward and bringing this predator to justice.”

The students were between the ages of 7 and 8. Matthews was 59 at the time of his sentencing.

From article: "During the trial, prosecutor Bruce DeSarro also presented a memo the School District had sent to Matthews before he committed the crimes for which he was convicted. The memo told Matthews not to have any physical contact whatsoever with students because of prior complaints about his touching female students. The crimes for which Matthews was convicted occurred in the next two years after the memo was sent. "

Sentence Upheld

LEGAL DECISION

Jan 8, 2008 - A Wisconsin appeals court has upheld the prison sentence of Mitchell King, now 43, a Wausau girls basketball coach and teacher convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old female student.

King pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child under 16 in 2005 as part of a plea bargain. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison and nine years of extended supervision. [Actually he was given concurrent sentences on the three charges.]

The Third District Court of Appeals rejected King's argument that the sentence was too harsh. The panel says a judge properly considered the effect a long sentence would have in deterring other teachers and coaches who might be tempted to exploit children.

King was a social studies teacher and coach at Wausau West High School for 13 years.

---

The story doesn't link to the decision. You can find it here. (HTML format) or PDF

It is interesting to note their views on general deterrence.

The sentencing court properly considered general deterrence among the factors that support the twenty-year sentence. Sentencing courts are required to consider the rights and interests of the public.

Imposing a sentence that might deter others from committing similar crimes reasonably promotes the public interest. Along with the seriousness of the offense, the numerous read-in offenses and King’s distorted view of Natalie’s role in their relationship, the court properly considered the deterrent effect on other teachers and coaches who might be tempted to exploit vulnerable children.

The prosecution called King "delusional" and the court decided that it wasn't a clinical assessment, but rather, the word conveys their assessment that K"ing exhibited a distorted view of the propriety of his sexual relationship with the child. King attempted to portray the child as an equal who pursued a sexual relationship with him. Because a child under the age of sixteen is not competent to consent to sexual contact or intercourse, the law protects children from others and from themselves."

As the trial court noted, King’s duty was to protect Natalie from her own self-destructive behavior. The fact that King misguidedly persists in arguing that Natalie’s reciprocal affection and voluntary acts are mitigating, confirm the sentencing court’s characterization of his thinking as an aggravating factor.

Kalama, WASHINGTON

LEGAL DECISION
Why teachers and unions hate standardized testing.

Nov 30, 2007 -

A federal jury today rejected a former Kalama teacher's claim that his civil rights were violated when administrators moved him to a smaller classroom and switched his teaching assignment in 2004.

Teacher David King claimed Superintendent Jim Sutton made the changes in retaliation for King's involvement in the Kalama teacher's union.

The district argued King, a math teacher for most of his 30-year career, was switched to teaching social studies because a high percentage of his math students scored poorly over a 10-year period.

The verdict was handed down late this morning in U.S. District Court in Tacoma after a two-week trial.

As a union "representative, King accompanied other teachers to disciplinary meetings with administrators. King's lawyer alleged that Sutton is an "anti-union guy" who disapproved of King's union involvement. Sutton said that allegation was nonsense.

TT - It took them 10 years to document his ineptness in teaching math? Too bad teachers and school administrators can't be sued for malpractice.

Willkes-Barre, PENNSYLVANIA

Nov 13, 2007 - The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a County Clerk of Courts employee who was convicted in June 2006 of deceiving a judge into signing a document in an attempt to get her husband’s criminal record cleared.

So he could be a teacher.

Jason Donahue had pleaded guilty or been convicted of a several charges in the early 1990s, including simple assault, disorderly conduct and harassment. The convictions had prevented Jason Donahue, who at the time was a substitute teacher in the Wilkes-Barre Area School District, from being hired full time.

Tonia Donahue prepared a document dismissing all charges, got a judge to sign it without reading it carefully, and submitted it. Only an employee at the state police records identification unit became suspicious.

Bastrop, LOUISIANA

Nov 1, 2007 - Travis Stanley, a teacher at Bastrop High School, lost an appeal of his conviction and sentencing.

Stanley was sentenced to six months in jail - not prison - after being convicted of inappopriate conduct with a 15-year-old female student after a three day trial.

In his appeal, Stanley's attorney Todd Newman argued that prosecutors and investigators made little or no effort to investigate Stanley's claim the student made the allegations after he had given her a failing grade. In their opinion, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal panel wrote "that sufficient evidence was presented by the state to sustain [Stanley's] conviction."

Newman also petitioned the court, stating the six-month sentence given to Stanley was excessive. The appeals court ruled Rambo's sentence "was appropriate."Further, Stanley violated his position of trust with respect to the school system of Morehouse Parish and his students," the appeal ruling states.

CONNECTICUT

Van Clifton McKenzie-Adams reports to prison, having lost all legal challenges.

Feb 20, 2007 - The Connecticut State Supreme Court ruled that laws that criminalize teacher-student sex do not infringe on one's constitutional right to privacy.

the justices said sexual acts "between individuals who are situated in an inherently coercive relationship, such as the teacher-student relationship" are not guaranteed the right of sexual privacy.

Court opinion here. [TT- graphic language warning.]

The teacher, Van Clifton McKenzie-Adams, was sentenced in 2004 to seven years in prison for having sex with two Career High School students. He acted improperly to a third student who rebuffed him.

Oct 13 - Having lost all his legal challenges, McKenzie-Adams surrendered in Superior Court Friday and went to prison for sexually assaulting two of his students.

Senior Assistant State's Attorney Gene Calistro Jr. noted what prosecutors have stressed throughout the years of litigation against McKenzie-Adams: "Even though the claim is it was consensual, a teacher is in a position of authority. Having that power over a student is the crux of the case. There is an inequity between a teenage student and an adult teacher. The sentence was fair."

Further,

When Emanuel argued the case in the state Supreme Court in September 2006, he asserted the court had ruled that people 16 or older are deemed to be adults for sexual purposes. He said such conduct is protected by the right of privacy.But state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who filed a brief supporting the prosecutors, said at that time, "A teacher does not have a constitutional right to sex with a student. Teachers are authority figures with the unique responsibility to effectively educate - not sexually exploit - our children."

After Emanuel lost that round in the state Supreme Court last February, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court has declined to hear the case.

Legal Ruling in Korea

If we could just get our courts to assert the rights of parents and students.

Oct 2, 2007 -

Korea’s Supreme Court ruled that a teacher work stoppage mandated by the teachers’ union was a violation of student rights yesterday. The court also ruled that the union pay compensation for the missed classes.

The ruling is a welcome move and signals the greater importance of education rights than teachers rights. The ruling regards education rights as inalienable. Parents from Shinjung Girls’ Commercial High School, who fought a long battle against the wealthy teachers’ union, deserve greater appreciation.

Union teachers at Shinjung refused to teach for 23 days in protest against school corruption in 2001. They also forced students to join a sympathy campaign in front of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education during class time. Parents demanded that students should have regular classes, but their demands were ignored. Parents finally filed a lawsuit and a 7-year-long legal battle followed.

AND,

Schools exist for students and parents, who pay taxes and school registration fees. Nevertheless, the Education Ministry and teachers in Korea are more powerful, which contrasts with the weakening of parents’ position.

The teachers’ union opposed the ruling, saying that the corrupt foundation of the private school is being disregarded. But in this case, the hard-earned rights of students and parents should not be violated. The ruling is a solemn warning to the union, which has repeatedly carried out protests against measures such as the teacher evaluation system and a performance-based pay system.

TT - Schools exist here for the educrats, the unions, and the political candidates who receive millions every year from American teachers unions. And you thought Korea was backward!

Classroom Speech

Legal Decision

Oct 1, 2007 - A teacher whose contract was not renewed in 2003 after telling her class on the eve of the Iraq war that "I honk for peace" lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal today. (TT - Despite SF Gate headline, she was not fired.)

From the San Franciso Chronicle:

The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to Deborah Mayer, who had appealed lower-court decisions upholding an Indiana school district's refusal to renew her contract in June 2003. The most recent ruling, by a federal appeals court in Chicago, said teachers in public schools have no constitutional right to express personal opinions in the classroom.

A teacher's speech is "the commodity she sells to an employer in exchange for her salary," the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling in January."The Constitution does not enable teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the instructions of elected officials."

The appellate ruling is binding only on federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin...

---

TT - Indiana appellate court decision.
The United States Court of Appeals for 7th Circuit decision 06-1993 (Dated Jan 24, 2007)

Fact: Mayer was a probationary teacher who had worked one year for the district. In writeup of the court decision, the SG Chronicle distorted the appellate court decision. The whole paragraph expounds on the "speech as a commodity."

This is so in part because the school system does not “regulate” teachers’ speech as much as it hires that speech. Expression is a teacher’s stock in trade, the commodity she sells to her employer in exchange for a salary. A teacher hired to lead a social-studies class can’t use it as a platform for a revisionist perspective that Benedict Arnold wasn’t really a traitor, when the approved program calls him one; a high-school teacher hired to explicate Moby-Dick in a literature class can’t use Cry, The Beloved Country instead, even if Paton’s book better suits the instructor’s style and point of view; a math teacher can’t decide that calculus is more important than trigonometry and decide to let Hipparchus and Ptolemy slide in favor of Newton and Leibniz.

Beyond the fact that teachers hire out their own speech and must provide the service for which employers are willing to pay—which makes this an easier case for the employer than Garcetti, where speech was not what the employee was being paid to create—is the fact that the pupils are a captive audience. Education is compulsory, and children must attend public schools unless their parents are willing to incur the cost of private education or the considerable time commitment of home schooling. Children who attend school because they must ought not be subject to teachers’ idiosyncratic perspectives. Majority rule about what subjects and viewpoints will be expressed in the classroom has the potential to turn into indoctrination; elected school boards are tempted to support majority positions about religious or patriotic subjects especially. But if indoctrination is likely, the power should be reposed in someone the people can vote out of office, rather than tenured teachers.

At least the board’s views can be debated openly, and the people may choose to elect persons committed to neutrality on contentious issues.

That is the path Monroe County has chosen; Mayer was told that she could teach the controversy about policy toward Iraq, drawing out arguments from all perspectives, as long as she kept her opinions to herself. The Constitution does not entitle teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the instructions of elected officials.

Final paragraph:

It is enough to hold that the first amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system.

EXCELLENT
COURT DECISION

September 5, 2007 - The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a New Jersey federal judge improperly ignored the federal sentencing guidelines that called for a prison term in the range of 37 to 46 months in sentencing Stefan Goff.

Stefan Goff, an elementary school teacher at the Chapin School, was sentenced to four months for possession of child pornography. Sentencing guidelines called for 37-46 months, with 37 months a minimum.

The Appeals court criticized Goff and the sentencing judge.

Goff has attempted to downplay the nature and seriousness of his crime," [U.S. Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan] Jordan wrote, "arguing in his brief that he was simply a 'curious, casual user' of the child pornography Web site and implying that his was a victimless crime because viewing the pornography was 'a solitary, private activity of short duration.'"

[Sentencing judge U.S. District Judge Anne E. ] Thompson "appears to have accepted this line of reasoning," Jordan said, noting that the lower court judge had interrupted the prosecutor's argument that possession of child pornography is "a serious matter," by saying: "But it's truly a psychological crime. It is not a taking crime. ... Almost one might say a psychiatric crime." The evidence, Jordan said, exposed the flaw in that logic.

One of the images found on Goff's computer was of "an adult male performing oral sex on a prepubescent female," Jordan noted.

Goff paid for access to hundreds of such images, Jordan noted, and therefore played a key role in the child pornography chain of exploitation.

The decision was unanimous. They ordered that the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing

United States v Goff PDF No. 05-5524 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2007)

Butte, MONTANA

You can't fire me! I'm a teamster.

August 31, 2007 - A school administrator in Butte, Montana was fired in 2005. Since then, an arbitrator has ordered the school to reinstate her, and now a judge has ordered the same thing.

The Butte school district is the only district in the state whose administrators are unionized. Cannon is represented by the Teamsters' Union.

At issue is the fact that she claims she still has tenure after becoming an administrator. The district maintains that Cannon's tenure ceased when she became an administrator.

Missouri

The plan to bypass voters and legislators and increase school spending by $1 billion has failed in Missouri.

August 31, 2007 - Judge Richard Callahan rejected claims that the state is failing to meet constitutional requirements to provide an adequate education for all public school students. He also rejected the assertion that spending on each pupil ought to be equal between wealthy and poor districts.

Callahan's ruling said the state constitution was not intended to guarantee "absolute equity, equality or adequacy in dollars spent or facilities from district to district."

Court decision PDF

The Springfield school district dropped out of another planned lawsuit.

If the court ruled that funding was not adequate, local taxpayers might not like the consequences: the possibility of a mandatory tax increase.

"I didn't want it to come across we needed to sue the state so we can get taxpayers to pay more money," said [Springfield Superintendent] NormRidder.

TT - Which is exactly what the ""plaintiff-intervenors" lawsuits are about.

New Jersey

August 29, 2007 -

A state appeals court ruled today that a former New Providence High School choir instructor, fired after admitting he kissed a male student on the lips in 2002, deserved a hearing before his teaching certificate could be revoked.

The ruling reversed a decision last year by the state Board of Education that revoked the teaching certificate of Stephen Fox, who worked for the New Providence Board of Education for nine years.

During his tenure, Fox served as chairman of the high school's music department and choir director for the middle and high schools.

Unpublished decision. LINK Rutgers School of Law NJ Courts Search Page

TT - For a long time we've wondered if the Garden State shouldn't change their nickname.

San Leandro, CALIFORNIA

August 28, 2007 - In a case that illustrates how unions campaign for their candidates, an Appellate court agreed with the school district that the union couldn't put their newsletters in the teachers' school district mailbox.

The mailboxes are intended to communicate with teachers and staff on school-related matters. When the assistant school superintendent advised the union that they couldn't use the district facilities to distribute materials that contained campaign endorsements, the union sued.

First, the union claimed an unfair practice. That was dismissed by the Public Employee Relations Board.

A trial resulted in a win for the union and awarded attorney fees to the union. In reviewing the case, the Appellate court noted that the union already places their newsletters in the teacher's lounge. The court concluded by stating that, "Because the internal school mailbox system is a nonpublic forum and the District’s restrictions on its use are reasonable and viewpoint neutral, we conclude that the District’s policy is constitutional. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order and reversethe order awarding attorney fees."

The case is San Leandro Teachers Association v the Governing Board of the San Leandro Unified School District PDF
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG05235795)