Check out Do the Right Thing For Kids, a blog designed to monitor the goings on in the Kansas City, MO school district.
The best part was their Board Watch Campaign, complete with an evaluation form. Perhaps a clever reader might want to create a Morrisville School Board Evaluation Form?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Confronting Faulty Grad Tests
This is presented as is with no editorial comment. I do not know enough of the specific situation to evaluate the essay content. What is clear is that in American society, anyone can sue anyone. Tightened graduation requirements, if imposed in unclear, haphazard, or inconsistent manners, will eventually lead to a courtroom.
The Nation / Youth, Education, & Children / Standardized Testing
Exit Strategies: Confronting Faulty Grad Tests
July 3, 2008
My name is Latricia Wilson. I was born in Gary, Indiana but currently reside in Memphis, Tennessee. I am 25-years-old and a student at Tennessee Technology Center. Just a few years ago I wasn't sure if I would be able to achieve any higher education or vocational training because my high school denied me a standard diploma despite the fact that I had completed all of my courses.
I was denied a proper diploma because I had failed to pass the math section of a new end of year test by a few points.
The Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Tests (TCAP), now called the Gateway Exam (PDF), are part of the state's assessment program. The high-stakes exit exam I took is part of a growing trend around the country leaving thousands of students without diplomas.
Prior to graduating high school, my career goals were to be a hairstylist and television makeup artist. After being denied a standard high school diploma in 2002 for failing to pass the TCAP math section, I was denied entry into all beauty schools even though I was on the technical/vocational path in high school and had taken cosmetology classes during my high school career. I was also denied entry into other Memphis technical and community colleges and universities.
I struggled as an adult to make a living wage to support myself. I worked as a waitress for years, took on double shifts and was just barely able to pay my rent. I was getting further away from my career goals and sinking deeper into poverty and debt. Eventually, I was evicted from my apartment. I've truly experienced how difficult it is to be an independent adult without a valid high school diploma. But I decided to do something about it, and started a quest to regain my rightful degree.
This is my own experience with Tennessee's public education system and how I was able to change it.
Diploma Drama
I was one of many students denied a high school diploma for failure to pass the TCAP tests in 2002. I had a mild learning disability in math, which made passing those TCAP sections difficult. I was enrolled in math resource classes from the ninth grade, and instructed at a slightly lower grade level than my classmates. Despite this, I was repeatedly administered the TCAP on a higher grade level than the one at which I was taught. As a result, I was unable to pass the math section by the end of senior year.
I was allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony, but instead of a regular diploma I received a "special education diploma," awarded to students with physical, emotional or severe learning disabilities not able to meet standard diploma requirements. But, having passed 20 credits in regular classes just like other students, I was qualified. I was mislabeled for no reason other than having failed the TCAP math section.
I was told by more than one high school guidance counselor that I could still further my education to some degree. I later learned that technical, vocational, community colleges and universities in Tennessee wouldn't accept my special diploma, because these institutions don't consider it a valid graduation certificate.
I was shamed and silenced, just like thousands of students that fail these state tests every year.
Gateway's Gaps
Twenty-three states, including Florida, Texas and California, have adopted exit exams as a requirement for receiving high school diplomas. The Gateway Exam is Tennessee's graduation requirement test and consists of English II, Algebra I and Biology I exams.
These assessments might seem like an important way to gauge a school or student's performance, but in the end they're linked to an inherently flawed public education system that fails to consider factors that hinder student performance such as lack of access to adequate classroom resources, quality instruction or tutoring services.
Students with learning disabilities are disproportionately affected because Tennessee public schools don't offer reasonable test accommodations such as portfolio assessments, additional test time, alternative test formats, or the use of adaptive equipment. Failing to provide these accommodations violates federal and state provisions set forth in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (reauthorized in 2002 as No Child Left Behind), the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
School closures also impact student preparedness for exit exams. In Memphis, for every school that closes, another facility must be made available, otherwise students are assigned to the next closest school. This can lead to class sizes of up to 40 students. Overcrowding hinders a teacher's effectiveness in covering core subjects such as English, science and math. Some teachers aren't even properly prepared to teach the basics.
In 2005, the Memphis City School Report Card data revealed that over one third of instructors were not "highly qualified" to teach core courses, leaving Memphis students with some 6,653 under-qualified teachers.
The Tennessee Department of Education also refuses to release test information that identifies what answers students missed, or indicate sections on which they may have performed poorly. Releasing this information would help instructors provide assistance for the Gateway Exam and ensure that students could be more successful when retaking the exam. Despite the fact that failure to pass an exit exam may seriously impact a student's future, proper assistance is not provided.
Denied Opportunities
According to the Tennessee Department of Education Annual Statistical Reports, between 1995 and 2007 a total of 32,233 students statewide were denied standard high school diplomas and given "special education diplomas." A further 8,654 students were only issued Certificates of Attendance (COA).
The Tennessee Department of Education failed to notify students of the COA's limitations including ineligibility for student loans, scholarships, entrance to the military or Federal Pell Grant funding for post-secondary education, as well as exclusion from technical, community colleges and universities.
The individual and societal costs of denying a diploma based on a state test score without providing students other alternatives are painfully high. Data from FairTest, the American Community Survey, US Census Bureau and Education Research Center show that students without diplomas earn much less in the workforce. They are less likely to maintain stable families as a result of unemployment or under-employment, and may turn to criminal activities in order to earn an income. Young people face these challenges every day and the stigma of having failed to complete their education silences them. In my case, it took a lawsuit to regain my voice.
I Had to Do Something!
While contemplating my future and feeling frustrated with the system, I decided to appeal the deficiencies of special diplomas and high-stakes exit examination before the Memphis school board, the state legislature and make my case heard on all the Memphis news stations (video).
I first addressed the Memphis City School Board at several meetings. Then I began contacting several local and state representatives by e-mail and phone to tell them how graduation requirements had affected my life. I came in contact with Rep. Barbara Cooper (D-Tenn.) who at that time was pushing for legislation to change the state graduation policies. I explained my diploma's limitations and how it was barring me from even entering a beauty school and Rep. Cooper asked me to testify before the House and Higher Education Committee at the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville.
I also explained the issue in a one-on-one meeting in Washington, DC with Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). A local DC blog called The Pesky Fly covered the meeting and wrote:
What impressed me about [her] current Congressman is that he didn't blow her off, and when she began to articulate her issue, he immediately offered to put her in touch with the Chairman of the Education sub-committee, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). Rep. Cohen gave Ms. Wilson a two-hour meeting on a Friday morning (when many of his colleagues, including some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, were busy blowing town for parts unknown, if not back to their districts). Expect Latricia to become a "shining star" on the Hill when she gives that testimony before Rep. Miller's subcommittee.
Meanwhile, I approached news reporters while they were covering stories on the streets of Memphis and distributed brief summaries of my personal experience and copies of my diploma. Media outlets were instrumental in forcing the state to acknowledge the issue of how its exit exams affected students like myself.
As a result, a federal class action lawsuit was filed July 26, 2007 against the Tennessee Department of Education on behalf of all former students that were denied high school diplomas for failure to pass the Gateway Exam. I was one of the plaintiffs represented by a young man named Corey Robertson. Walter Bailey Law Firm Attorney Javier Bailey filed my case.
Better Days Ahead
Within the lawsuit, my attorney asked the judge to dismantle the Gateway Exam as a graduation requirement. We also asked that students denied diplomas be recertified. Unfortunately, the lawsuit was dismissed due my case's expired statute of limitations. We lost the battle but in the end we won the war because we were successful in being the first to legally challenge the state on this issue. Tennessee's unfair testing policy had been exposed.
The Tennessee State Board of Education did not want to risk being challenged on graduation testing again and on January 25, 2008, just a few months after my suit was dismissed, the Board moved to eliminate the Gateway Exam as a diploma requirement. In the 2009-2010 school year no student in the state of Tennessee will be required to pass any test to qualify for a high school diploma.
While I failed the TCAP math section in 2002 because of systemic failures in the public school system here in Tennessee, I do not consider myself a failure. In fact, I took the Gateway Exam on May 1, 2007 in hopes of passing to obtain a standard diploma. I'm determined that I will not be deemed unemployable and incapable of pursuing my career goals merely because of a high school test score.
The Nation / Youth, Education, & Children / Standardized Testing
Exit Strategies: Confronting Faulty Grad Tests
July 3, 2008
My name is Latricia Wilson. I was born in Gary, Indiana but currently reside in Memphis, Tennessee. I am 25-years-old and a student at Tennessee Technology Center. Just a few years ago I wasn't sure if I would be able to achieve any higher education or vocational training because my high school denied me a standard diploma despite the fact that I had completed all of my courses.
I was denied a proper diploma because I had failed to pass the math section of a new end of year test by a few points.
The Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Tests (TCAP), now called the Gateway Exam (PDF), are part of the state's assessment program. The high-stakes exit exam I took is part of a growing trend around the country leaving thousands of students without diplomas.
Prior to graduating high school, my career goals were to be a hairstylist and television makeup artist. After being denied a standard high school diploma in 2002 for failing to pass the TCAP math section, I was denied entry into all beauty schools even though I was on the technical/vocational path in high school and had taken cosmetology classes during my high school career. I was also denied entry into other Memphis technical and community colleges and universities.
I struggled as an adult to make a living wage to support myself. I worked as a waitress for years, took on double shifts and was just barely able to pay my rent. I was getting further away from my career goals and sinking deeper into poverty and debt. Eventually, I was evicted from my apartment. I've truly experienced how difficult it is to be an independent adult without a valid high school diploma. But I decided to do something about it, and started a quest to regain my rightful degree.
This is my own experience with Tennessee's public education system and how I was able to change it.
Diploma Drama
I was one of many students denied a high school diploma for failure to pass the TCAP tests in 2002. I had a mild learning disability in math, which made passing those TCAP sections difficult. I was enrolled in math resource classes from the ninth grade, and instructed at a slightly lower grade level than my classmates. Despite this, I was repeatedly administered the TCAP on a higher grade level than the one at which I was taught. As a result, I was unable to pass the math section by the end of senior year.
I was allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony, but instead of a regular diploma I received a "special education diploma," awarded to students with physical, emotional or severe learning disabilities not able to meet standard diploma requirements. But, having passed 20 credits in regular classes just like other students, I was qualified. I was mislabeled for no reason other than having failed the TCAP math section.
I was told by more than one high school guidance counselor that I could still further my education to some degree. I later learned that technical, vocational, community colleges and universities in Tennessee wouldn't accept my special diploma, because these institutions don't consider it a valid graduation certificate.
I was shamed and silenced, just like thousands of students that fail these state tests every year.
Gateway's Gaps
Twenty-three states, including Florida, Texas and California, have adopted exit exams as a requirement for receiving high school diplomas. The Gateway Exam is Tennessee's graduation requirement test and consists of English II, Algebra I and Biology I exams.
These assessments might seem like an important way to gauge a school or student's performance, but in the end they're linked to an inherently flawed public education system that fails to consider factors that hinder student performance such as lack of access to adequate classroom resources, quality instruction or tutoring services.
Students with learning disabilities are disproportionately affected because Tennessee public schools don't offer reasonable test accommodations such as portfolio assessments, additional test time, alternative test formats, or the use of adaptive equipment. Failing to provide these accommodations violates federal and state provisions set forth in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (reauthorized in 2002 as No Child Left Behind), the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
School closures also impact student preparedness for exit exams. In Memphis, for every school that closes, another facility must be made available, otherwise students are assigned to the next closest school. This can lead to class sizes of up to 40 students. Overcrowding hinders a teacher's effectiveness in covering core subjects such as English, science and math. Some teachers aren't even properly prepared to teach the basics.
In 2005, the Memphis City School Report Card data revealed that over one third of instructors were not "highly qualified" to teach core courses, leaving Memphis students with some 6,653 under-qualified teachers.
The Tennessee Department of Education also refuses to release test information that identifies what answers students missed, or indicate sections on which they may have performed poorly. Releasing this information would help instructors provide assistance for the Gateway Exam and ensure that students could be more successful when retaking the exam. Despite the fact that failure to pass an exit exam may seriously impact a student's future, proper assistance is not provided.
Denied Opportunities
According to the Tennessee Department of Education Annual Statistical Reports, between 1995 and 2007 a total of 32,233 students statewide were denied standard high school diplomas and given "special education diplomas." A further 8,654 students were only issued Certificates of Attendance (COA).
The Tennessee Department of Education failed to notify students of the COA's limitations including ineligibility for student loans, scholarships, entrance to the military or Federal Pell Grant funding for post-secondary education, as well as exclusion from technical, community colleges and universities.
The individual and societal costs of denying a diploma based on a state test score without providing students other alternatives are painfully high. Data from FairTest, the American Community Survey, US Census Bureau and Education Research Center show that students without diplomas earn much less in the workforce. They are less likely to maintain stable families as a result of unemployment or under-employment, and may turn to criminal activities in order to earn an income. Young people face these challenges every day and the stigma of having failed to complete their education silences them. In my case, it took a lawsuit to regain my voice.
I Had to Do Something!
While contemplating my future and feeling frustrated with the system, I decided to appeal the deficiencies of special diplomas and high-stakes exit examination before the Memphis school board, the state legislature and make my case heard on all the Memphis news stations (video).
I first addressed the Memphis City School Board at several meetings. Then I began contacting several local and state representatives by e-mail and phone to tell them how graduation requirements had affected my life. I came in contact with Rep. Barbara Cooper (D-Tenn.) who at that time was pushing for legislation to change the state graduation policies. I explained my diploma's limitations and how it was barring me from even entering a beauty school and Rep. Cooper asked me to testify before the House and Higher Education Committee at the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville.
I also explained the issue in a one-on-one meeting in Washington, DC with Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). A local DC blog called The Pesky Fly covered the meeting and wrote:
What impressed me about [her] current Congressman is that he didn't blow her off, and when she began to articulate her issue, he immediately offered to put her in touch with the Chairman of the Education sub-committee, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). Rep. Cohen gave Ms. Wilson a two-hour meeting on a Friday morning (when many of his colleagues, including some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, were busy blowing town for parts unknown, if not back to their districts). Expect Latricia to become a "shining star" on the Hill when she gives that testimony before Rep. Miller's subcommittee.
Meanwhile, I approached news reporters while they were covering stories on the streets of Memphis and distributed brief summaries of my personal experience and copies of my diploma. Media outlets were instrumental in forcing the state to acknowledge the issue of how its exit exams affected students like myself.
As a result, a federal class action lawsuit was filed July 26, 2007 against the Tennessee Department of Education on behalf of all former students that were denied high school diplomas for failure to pass the Gateway Exam. I was one of the plaintiffs represented by a young man named Corey Robertson. Walter Bailey Law Firm Attorney Javier Bailey filed my case.
Better Days Ahead
Within the lawsuit, my attorney asked the judge to dismantle the Gateway Exam as a graduation requirement. We also asked that students denied diplomas be recertified. Unfortunately, the lawsuit was dismissed due my case's expired statute of limitations. We lost the battle but in the end we won the war because we were successful in being the first to legally challenge the state on this issue. Tennessee's unfair testing policy had been exposed.
The Tennessee State Board of Education did not want to risk being challenged on graduation testing again and on January 25, 2008, just a few months after my suit was dismissed, the Board moved to eliminate the Gateway Exam as a diploma requirement. In the 2009-2010 school year no student in the state of Tennessee will be required to pass any test to qualify for a high school diploma.
While I failed the TCAP math section in 2002 because of systemic failures in the public school system here in Tennessee, I do not consider myself a failure. In fact, I took the Gateway Exam on May 1, 2007 in hopes of passing to obtain a standard diploma. I'm determined that I will not be deemed unemployable and incapable of pursuing my career goals merely because of a high school test score.
Willing to pay for more testing?
A guest opinion appearing in the BCCT. Here's a good point that parallels the questions Superintendent Yonson has been raising. She's asked how can we raise the accountability you want without paying for teachers.
Don't forget that the board adopted a resolution against increased testing.
Are the taxpayers willing to pay for more testing?
It’s the taxpayer who ends up footing the bill for the mandates, often through increases in school property taxes.
Thomas J. Gentzel is the executive director of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.
The Bucks County Courier Times editorial on June 18 regarding graduation requirements is filled with inaccuracies and is offensive to the dedication and successes of public schools in Pennsylvania.
Your assertions that school districts are handing out “empty diplomas” and that most school districts “cheat kids out of an education” are an insult to every hard-working teacher, school board member and school administrator working in a Pennsylvania public high school. Worse, they are not factually accurate.
Information from a recent PSBA survey shows that school districts invest substantial amounts of time, effort and resources into developing local assessments, aligning them to the state’s academic standards as the law requires. Many districts in your readership area fit that bill.
The Avon Grove School District in Chester County and Centennial and Central Bucks school districts in Bucks County are but three that have comprehensive local graduation testing and alignment procedures in place. These districts, along with scores of others, take their responsibility in this area seriously. To dismiss their efforts, as your editorial does, simply gives credence to the careless propaganda that proponents of this proposal are using to try desperately to win its enactment. The members of the General Assembly who have raised concerns with this proposal do so for good reason and should be commended, not condemned, for questioning a plan that is so badly misdirected.
The argument against the Graduate Competency exams is about more than the tests themselves. It is also about the funding. Although proponents argue that the full cost of the mandate will be covered by state funding, the reality is that the money will disappear rather quickly. More often than not, school districts and taxpayers are left funding a large portion of these mandates. There is no guarantee that the money proponents say will help districts pay for the costs of this proposal will be there in 2011-12 when it takes effect. Look at the current budget process, where the Senate proposed a 41 percent cut in funding for education that would cause chaos for school districts that have already adopted budgets. Not only has Senate Bill 1389 been proposed so late in the year that school districts do not have time to adjust their budgets, but it also ignores the results of the Costing-Out Study that was commissioned by the General Assembly. In the end, it is the taxpayer who ends up footing the bill for the mandates, often through increases in school property tax.
Let’s be clear: There is no disagreement about the need for students to be proficient in critical subject areas and to be prepared to become contributing citizens when they graduate high school. This is a debate about whether those attributes can be demonstrated through paper-and-pencil testing alone and who should carry the cost burden of more testing. The question taxpayers need to ask themselves is: “Are you ready to pay for yet another unfunded mandate?”
Don't forget that the board adopted a resolution against increased testing.
Are the taxpayers willing to pay for more testing?
It’s the taxpayer who ends up footing the bill for the mandates, often through increases in school property taxes.
Thomas J. Gentzel is the executive director of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.
The Bucks County Courier Times editorial on June 18 regarding graduation requirements is filled with inaccuracies and is offensive to the dedication and successes of public schools in Pennsylvania.
Your assertions that school districts are handing out “empty diplomas” and that most school districts “cheat kids out of an education” are an insult to every hard-working teacher, school board member and school administrator working in a Pennsylvania public high school. Worse, they are not factually accurate.
Information from a recent PSBA survey shows that school districts invest substantial amounts of time, effort and resources into developing local assessments, aligning them to the state’s academic standards as the law requires. Many districts in your readership area fit that bill.
The Avon Grove School District in Chester County and Centennial and Central Bucks school districts in Bucks County are but three that have comprehensive local graduation testing and alignment procedures in place. These districts, along with scores of others, take their responsibility in this area seriously. To dismiss their efforts, as your editorial does, simply gives credence to the careless propaganda that proponents of this proposal are using to try desperately to win its enactment. The members of the General Assembly who have raised concerns with this proposal do so for good reason and should be commended, not condemned, for questioning a plan that is so badly misdirected.
The argument against the Graduate Competency exams is about more than the tests themselves. It is also about the funding. Although proponents argue that the full cost of the mandate will be covered by state funding, the reality is that the money will disappear rather quickly. More often than not, school districts and taxpayers are left funding a large portion of these mandates. There is no guarantee that the money proponents say will help districts pay for the costs of this proposal will be there in 2011-12 when it takes effect. Look at the current budget process, where the Senate proposed a 41 percent cut in funding for education that would cause chaos for school districts that have already adopted budgets. Not only has Senate Bill 1389 been proposed so late in the year that school districts do not have time to adjust their budgets, but it also ignores the results of the Costing-Out Study that was commissioned by the General Assembly. In the end, it is the taxpayer who ends up footing the bill for the mandates, often through increases in school property tax.
Let’s be clear: There is no disagreement about the need for students to be proficient in critical subject areas and to be prepared to become contributing citizens when they graduate high school. This is a debate about whether those attributes can be demonstrated through paper-and-pencil testing alone and who should carry the cost burden of more testing. The question taxpayers need to ask themselves is: “Are you ready to pay for yet another unfunded mandate?”
"Pretend this meeting never happened"
It seems that unreality is not limited to the borders of the Morrisville school board's domain.
This article talks about the South Iron Missouri School District, who got in trouble with the way they dealt with religion in the school. That's not quite Morrisville's problem. The paragraphs describing the school board however, are classic Morrisville.
"...And the fact that the school board repeatedly ignored the advice of their own superintendent, their own attorney, the attorneys for the state association of school boards and the attorney for their insurance company (which voided their liability policy as a result, just like in Dover) and refused to change that policy even after being told by all of them that allowing the Gideons to do so was unconstitutional.
And the fact that the school board actually voted to "pretend this meeting never happened" when those attorneys all told them they had to change their policy. It was only a few days before a court hearing on a preliminary injunction that the school board, under advice of Staver's legal group, finally and reluctantly changed their mind and instituted an open forum policy. But they also made it clear that they didn't think there was anything wrong with the old policy."
"Pretend the meeting never took place!" I can only imagine who might make that motion.
Staver Lies About Court Case
Category: Politics
Posted on: July 10, 2008 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton
And the odds of that were about, oh, 1 to 1. In this article at OneNewsNow, Matt Staver, head of Liberty Counsel and Falwell's law school, tells more whoppers about the facts and outcome of a case involving the distribution of Gideon bibles in an elementary school in the South Iron School District in Missouri. The lies begin with the headline of the article:
ACLU given 'veto power' over free-speech rights
Not even close. The case didn't even have anything to do with free speech rights, it was an establishment clause case. And this idea of the ACLU having "veto power" is a ridiculous way to spin the ruling (which you can see in full here). And boy is Staver spinning:
The South Iron School District allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature to students before and after school, and during other non-instructional times such as lunch breaks. But the American Civil Liberties Union sued, saying the Gideons should not be allowed to hand out Bibles because of their religious nature. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry agreed.
True to form, the AFA's news site leaves just a few inconvenient facts out of the story. Like the fact that the suit was filed not against a policy that allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature, but against a policy that allowed only the Gideons to do so, and that further gave the Gideons access to 5th grade classrooms during instructional time, something court after court has struck down as clearly unconstitutional.
And the fact that the school board repeatedly ignored the advice of their own superintendent, their own attorney, the attorneys for the state association of school boards and the attorney for their insurance company (which voided their liability policy as a result, just like in Dover) and refused to change that policy even after being told by all of them that allowing the Gideons to do so was unconstitutional.
And the fact that the school board actually voted to "pretend this meeting never happened" when those attorneys all told them they had to change their policy. It was only a few days before a court hearing on a preliminary injunction that the school board, under advice of Staver's legal group, finally and reluctantly changed their mind and instituted an open forum policy. But they also made it clear that they didn't think there was anything wrong with the old policy.
That's why the judge refused to moot the case based on the voluntary cessation doctrine, because the school board had clearly changed its policy only to get out from under the case. But in doing so, they also made quite clear that their sole objective in the process was to endorse Christianity by preserving some way, any way, for the Gideons to get into the school and hand out bibles.
The judge in this case, citing the Lemon test prohibition on any policy which does not have a clear secular purpose, said:
The undisputed evidence here shows that the District's purpose in passing the new policy was the promotion of Christianity, and therefore it violates the Establishment Clause.
All of this flows directly from the Supreme Court's rulings in Santa Fe and McCreary, where the court analyzed similar situations where the government attempted after the fact to change their policy but left clear evidence of their religious intent behind in the process. There is a case to be made against such reasoning, but a district court is bound to apply the precedents as they are.
"In fact, the federal judge said...the ACLU must be able to have the say-so over whether religious literature can be distributed -- and obviously, if the ACLU has that say-so, no religious literature will ever be distributed," says Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.
This is a flat out lie, plain and simple. The judge said nothing even close to that. The ruling doesn't give the ACLU "veto power" over anything. The ACLU represented the plaintiffs and the court agreed with the plaintiffs that existing precedent required the conclusion that this policy was unconstitutional. That's it.
But Staver points out that the First Amendment prohibits any "heckler" from having the right to prohibit free speech. "...The ACLU may not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but, frankly, the Constitution requires equal treatment," states the attorney. "...Hecklers may heckle all they want to, but they may not veto private religious speech."
I think David Gibbs is going to have a hard time catching Staver in the competition for the title of the nation's loopiest religious right attorney. Arguments like this are simply laughable. If you analyzed this ruling for a con law 1 class in law school and pretended that the case had something to do with the heckler's veto and private speech, the professor would not only flunk you he might also suggest that you make a different career choice.
This article talks about the South Iron Missouri School District, who got in trouble with the way they dealt with religion in the school. That's not quite Morrisville's problem. The paragraphs describing the school board however, are classic Morrisville.
"...And the fact that the school board repeatedly ignored the advice of their own superintendent, their own attorney, the attorneys for the state association of school boards and the attorney for their insurance company (which voided their liability policy as a result, just like in Dover) and refused to change that policy even after being told by all of them that allowing the Gideons to do so was unconstitutional.
And the fact that the school board actually voted to "pretend this meeting never happened" when those attorneys all told them they had to change their policy. It was only a few days before a court hearing on a preliminary injunction that the school board, under advice of Staver's legal group, finally and reluctantly changed their mind and instituted an open forum policy. But they also made it clear that they didn't think there was anything wrong with the old policy."
"Pretend the meeting never took place!" I can only imagine who might make that motion.
Staver Lies About Court Case
Category: Politics
Posted on: July 10, 2008 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton
And the odds of that were about, oh, 1 to 1. In this article at OneNewsNow, Matt Staver, head of Liberty Counsel and Falwell's law school, tells more whoppers about the facts and outcome of a case involving the distribution of Gideon bibles in an elementary school in the South Iron School District in Missouri. The lies begin with the headline of the article:
ACLU given 'veto power' over free-speech rights
Not even close. The case didn't even have anything to do with free speech rights, it was an establishment clause case. And this idea of the ACLU having "veto power" is a ridiculous way to spin the ruling (which you can see in full here). And boy is Staver spinning:
The South Iron School District allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature to students before and after school, and during other non-instructional times such as lunch breaks. But the American Civil Liberties Union sued, saying the Gideons should not be allowed to hand out Bibles because of their religious nature. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry agreed.
True to form, the AFA's news site leaves just a few inconvenient facts out of the story. Like the fact that the suit was filed not against a policy that allows off-campus organizations to distribute literature, but against a policy that allowed only the Gideons to do so, and that further gave the Gideons access to 5th grade classrooms during instructional time, something court after court has struck down as clearly unconstitutional.
And the fact that the school board repeatedly ignored the advice of their own superintendent, their own attorney, the attorneys for the state association of school boards and the attorney for their insurance company (which voided their liability policy as a result, just like in Dover) and refused to change that policy even after being told by all of them that allowing the Gideons to do so was unconstitutional.
And the fact that the school board actually voted to "pretend this meeting never happened" when those attorneys all told them they had to change their policy. It was only a few days before a court hearing on a preliminary injunction that the school board, under advice of Staver's legal group, finally and reluctantly changed their mind and instituted an open forum policy. But they also made it clear that they didn't think there was anything wrong with the old policy.
That's why the judge refused to moot the case based on the voluntary cessation doctrine, because the school board had clearly changed its policy only to get out from under the case. But in doing so, they also made quite clear that their sole objective in the process was to endorse Christianity by preserving some way, any way, for the Gideons to get into the school and hand out bibles.
The judge in this case, citing the Lemon test prohibition on any policy which does not have a clear secular purpose, said:
The undisputed evidence here shows that the District's purpose in passing the new policy was the promotion of Christianity, and therefore it violates the Establishment Clause.
All of this flows directly from the Supreme Court's rulings in Santa Fe and McCreary, where the court analyzed similar situations where the government attempted after the fact to change their policy but left clear evidence of their religious intent behind in the process. There is a case to be made against such reasoning, but a district court is bound to apply the precedents as they are.
"In fact, the federal judge said...the ACLU must be able to have the say-so over whether religious literature can be distributed -- and obviously, if the ACLU has that say-so, no religious literature will ever be distributed," says Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.
This is a flat out lie, plain and simple. The judge said nothing even close to that. The ruling doesn't give the ACLU "veto power" over anything. The ACLU represented the plaintiffs and the court agreed with the plaintiffs that existing precedent required the conclusion that this policy was unconstitutional. That's it.
But Staver points out that the First Amendment prohibits any "heckler" from having the right to prohibit free speech. "...The ACLU may not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but, frankly, the Constitution requires equal treatment," states the attorney. "...Hecklers may heckle all they want to, but they may not veto private religious speech."
I think David Gibbs is going to have a hard time catching Staver in the competition for the title of the nation's loopiest religious right attorney. Arguments like this are simply laughable. If you analyzed this ruling for a con law 1 class in law school and pretended that the case had something to do with the heckler's veto and private speech, the professor would not only flunk you he might also suggest that you make a different career choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)