# data[].attributes.body
This website provides resources for understanding the first amendment freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. This website provides different topics such as the Establishment Clause, primers, First Amendment FAQs, and publications. These resources can help administrators, teachers, students, and parents better understand their First  Amendment rights in school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our mission: providing resources to help the public understand how their First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition work, and how they can be protected. First Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
This website provides information on different aspects involving religion in public schools. This sources provides information on religious liberty, prayer in public schools, religion in the curriculum, release time programs, and many other aspects of religion in public schools. This resource is a great tool for administrators to use to make sure student, parent, and staff religious liberties are being respected. Administrators can also use this resource to evaluate their curriculum in regards to the primary effect and lemon tests to ensure the school is not promoting nor prohibiting a religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The issue of the proper role of religion in the public schools continues to be the subject of great controversy. School officials, parents and students -- as well as lawyers and...

# data[].attributes.headline
ACLU - Student Rights at School: Six Things You Need to Know 

# data[].attributes.subject
ACLU - Student Rights at School: Six Things You Need to Know 

# data[].attributes.body
The American Civil Liberties Union has created a list of six student rights that administrators, parents, and students should be aware of. The six things to know include student rights involving speech, dress codes, immigrants, disabilities, LGBT, and pregnancy. Schools cannot discriminate against students and should be always maintain reasonableness when creating school rules such as dress codes. This sources is beneficial for administrators to make sure basic student rights are not being violated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the Constitution protects the rights of students at school, many school officials are unaware of students' legal protections, or simply ignore them.

When heading back to school this year, make sure to know your rights and ensure that your school treats every student fairly and equally. The ACLU has a long tradition of fighting to protect students' rights, and is always ready to speak with you on a confidential basis. If you believe that your rights have been violated, don't hesitate to contact your local ACLU affiliate.

Here are six things you need to know about your rights at school:

1. Speech rights

In the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the ACLU successfully challenged a school district's decision to suspend three students for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The court declared that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

The First Amendment ensures that students cannot be punished for exercising free speech rights, even if school administrators don't approve of what they are saying. Unfortunately, where legal protections are weak, schools are threatening student's speech - and their privacy - by requiring them to reveal the contents of their social media accounts, cell phones, laptops, and other personal technologies. The ACLU is fighting for new state laws around the country that would provide stronger student privacy protections.

Over the years, the ACLU has successfully defended the right of students to wear an anti-abortion armband, a pro-LGBT t-shirt, and shirts critical of political figures. The ACLU has even defended the rights of high school students who wanted to protest the ACLU.

Contact the ACLU if you believe your school is trying to limit your First Amendment rights.

2. Dress codes

While schools are allowed to establish dress codes, students have a right to express themselves.

Dress codes are all too often used to target and shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes and punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination, by targeting students of color over supposed "gang" symbols or punishing students for wearing natural hairstyles and hair extensions. Dress codes can also infringe on a student's religious rights by barring rosaries, headscarves and other religious symbols.

Schools must make the case that a certain kind of dress is disruptive to school activities. They cannot use dress codes to punish girls, people of color, transgender and gender non-conforming students and free speech.

If you are told to comply with a dress code that you believe is discriminatory, contact the ACLU. Complying with the dress code will not prevent you from challenging it at a later date.

3. Immigrant rights

Schools cannot discriminate against students on the basis of race, color, national origin. Undocumented children cannot be denied their right to a free public education, but some schools continue to create exclusionary policies. Last year, the ACLU sued several school districts for requiring families to prove their immigration status in order to enroll their children in school.

Students with limited English proficiency cannot be turned away by schools, which must provide them with language instruction.

Contact the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project if you have observed or experienced discrimination based on immigration status or national origin in school.

4. Disability rights

Public schools are prohibited by federal law from discriminating against people with disabilities, and cannot deny them equal access to academic courses, field trips, extracurricular activities, school technology, and health services.

Sometimes, educators and administrators discriminate by refusing to make necessary medical accommodations, restricting access to educational activities and opportunities, ignoring harassment and bullying, and failing to train staff on compliance with state and federal laws.

Schools have a duty to defend students with disabilities from bullying and biased treatment, and the ACLU is working to ensure that the rights of these students are protected.

5. LGBT rights

Bullying of LGBT students can be pervasive at schools, and is all too often ignored or encouraged by the schools themselves. LGBT students have a right to be who they are and express themselves at school. Students have a right to be out of the closet at school, and schools cannot skirt their responsibility to create a safe learning environment and address incidents of harassment.

Public schools are not allowed to threaten to "out" students to their families, overlook bullying, force students to wear clothing inconsistent with their gender identity or bar LGBT-themed clubs or attire. Transgender and gender non-conforming students often face hostile environments in which school officials refuse to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns or provide access to appropriate bathroom and locker room facilities.

If you find that your school is undermining your rights, contact your local ACLU affiliate or the ACLU LGBT Project. Be sure to report incidents of bullying or bias to a school principal or counselor and remember to keep detailed notes of your interactions with officials and make copies of any paperwork that the school asks you to fill out.

6. Pregnancy discrimination

Since Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education, was passed in 1972, schools have been prohibited from excluding pregnant students and students with children. Yet schools often push such students to drop out by making it impossible to complete classwork, preventing them from participating in extracurricular activities, refusing to accommodate schedule adjustments, punishing them with unwarranted disciplinary actions, and pressuring them to transfer or quit school altogether.

Denying these students an education, access to school activities and reasonable accommodations violates their rights. Public schools must ensure that pregnant students have access to the same accommodations that students with temporary medical conditions are given, including the ability to make up missed classwork and learn in a safe, nonjudgmental environment. Schools are also not allowed to punish students who choose to terminate a pregnancy or reveal a student's private medical information.

If you believe that your school is treating you unfairly for being pregnant, ending a pregnancy, or having a child, contact the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Rights at School: Six Things You Need To Know | ACLU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the Constitution protects the rights of students at school, many school officials are unaware of students' legal protections, or simply ignore them. When heading back to school this year, make sure to know your rights and ensure that your school treats every student fairly and equally.

# data[].attributes.body
This news article covers an incident from March of 2017 where a driver's ed teacher refused to train a student who would not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The driver's ed teacher was fired for not doing their job by refusing to train the student. This article is important because it shows the the complexity of teacher rights vs. students rights. Although teachers have certain rights, they do not have the right to deny students training because of personal beliefs. Students cannot be punished for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This teacher also did not have tenure and therefore was able to be terminated without full due process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eisenhower High School (Chicago) student Shemar Cooper and his mother apparently feel a need to make an issue about how much the former does not like his country.

Earlier this school year, Cooper refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in his Spanish class, telling the teacher it was because "America sucks." His mother made him apologize for the comment, but not for his choice to remain seated.

However, the next time the Pledge was recited in that class, the teacher allegedly grabbed him and tried to force him to stand.

That teacher, a "Ms. Alfono" (it actually appears to be "Alfano") received a one-day suspension for her actions.

Now, Eisenhower has fired one of its driver's education teachers for his refusal to allow Cooper into one his training vehicles.

According to CBS Chicago, teacher Vince Ziebarth informed Shemar that he couldn't take driver's ed with him as long as he kept sitting during the Pledge.

"I had a one-on-one conversation with him that, due to his decision to sit for the [P]ledge, I would no longer take him in my car," Ziebarth said. "All I told him is that, based on his actions, he has a choice with his actions. I was exercising my right to make a choice as well."

Students at the school can choose from eight driver's ed instructors, so apparently Cooper had seven others from which to pick.

The Chicago Tribune reports Ziebarth contends that after their discussion, Cooper would joke about their "understanding" by saying "Hey, Mr. Z am I going to ride with you today?"

"Shemar was absolutely pushing the issue," he added.

Cooper's mother Kelley Porter Turner, however, claims it was Ziebarth who "wouldn't let it go."

After not having any conversation with Cooper for some two weeks, Ziebarth was called to the principal's office. The next day he was informed that his employment was terminated. He did not have tenure.

From the article:

Ziebarth said, "I told him he can make a choice to sit, but as long as you choose to sit, you will not sit in my (drivers ed) vehicle. I did not tell him what to do."

Cooper's other friends drive with the teacher. When a group went out for behind-the-wheel training, Cooper asked if he also could go, his mother said.

The teacher reportedly told her son, "'You know what you have to do if you want to come with me,'" Porter Turner said.

"If my son didn't say anything to me, (the teacher) would have continued - and that's bullying," she said.

"He violated my son's First Amendment rights," she said.

She said she emailed an Eisenhower administrator and asked her to "take care of it."

"She called me two days later and said he was going to be terminated," said Porter Turner, who then contacted the news media.

Porter Turner believes Shemar's Spanish teacher actually should have been fired for what she did, saying "[t]hat would send a message that you can't get away with bullying my son." Unknown to The College Fix at the time, she had started a petition at Change.org near the start of the school year demanding that Ms. Alfano be let go.

Shemar's mom alleges that he has been the target of harassment as a result of the matter with Ziebarth, just as he was after the incident with Alfano. For instance, a student stood up in one of Shemar's classes and yelled at him "You got Mr. Z fired!" An argument followed.

Currently, a Change.org petition has 1,110 signatures asking that Ziebarth be reinstated at Eisenhower HS.

As I noted about the flap with Spanish teacher Alfano, Ms. Porter Turner is clearly correct that her son has the right to remain seated during the Pledge of Allegiance, and certainly no teacher should coerce a student into standing for/saying it, especially by physical means.

However, given the recent matter with Mr. Ziebarth, something tells me there's a bit more here than meets the eye, the biggest piece being this is the second circumstance pertaining to the same student (and parent) that's been given wide media coverage.

Then there's the fact Shemar could choose from between eight driver's ed teachers: Why did he select Ziebarth? To make an "example" of him? It's apparent the teen has a bit of a chip on his shoulder as witnessed by his "America sucks" remark, and his beliefs that the US is "a very racist country" in which there's "no freedom or love for black people."

Perhaps most concerning is why Ziebarth was canned instead of simply being reprimanded - told that he couldn't pick and choose which students he wanted to train. The Tribune notes Ziebarth would have done exactly that had he been so instructed, but was not given the option. (As a former teacher, such a mandate is one I would agree with. If Cooper, as it appears, is being penalized simply for exercising his First Amendment rights, that's a problem. After all, for what other beliefs could Ziebarth, or any other teacher, deny teaching a student?)

Did the school administration use the ultimate penalty because of the previous incident with the Spanish teacher, including mom's demand that she be fired? Were Eisenhower officials fearful of Porter Turner hitting the press circuit again and again ... and perhaps a lawsuit?

MORE: HS teacher accused of forcing student to stand for Pledge of Allegiance

MORE: Prof: Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem 'ignore' America's racist history

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Driver's ed teacher fired for refusing to train student who won't say Pledge of Allegiance | The College Fix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eisenhower High School (Chicago) student Shemar Cooper and his mother apparently feel a need to make an issue about how much the former does not like his country. Earlier this school year, Cooper refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in his Spanish class, telling the teacher it was because "America sucks."

# data[].attributes.headline
To What Extent are Districts, Schools Liable for student' safety?

# data[].attributes.subject
To What Extent are Districts, Schools Liable for student' safety?

# data[].attributes.body
This website provides information on liability of students in regards to school shootings, sexual misconduct, bullying/harassment, suicide, and physical injury. Foreseeability applies when a district was aware of a potential threat (verbal or physical bullying, posts on social media, broken equipment, etc.) but do nothing to address the threat. By doing nothing districts can be held liable. This resource provides court cases which involved the above topics with students and explains the decisions of the courts. This website could be beneficial to districts to help understand their liability in regards to different cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While a school's primary goal is to educate students, another priority is providing a safe environment. It's a responsibility enforced in federal, state and local laws, but ultimately, students can - and do - get hurt. And when they do, many blame the school or district.

Getting scraped up during recess, for instance, isn't new. Neither is getting made fun of by a classmate. Some medical experts call falls and broken bones " inevitable ," and some scholars cite teasing as an " important preparation for life ." But more severe issues, including sexual harassment, cyberbullying and school shootings are increasingly penetrating classrooms, spurring legal disputes over who's responsible.

"School safety is moving from the schoolhouse to the court of public opinion and the law," said school safety consultant Kenneth Trump. "But every case is unique - the legal issues vary, the allegations vary, and that's what makes it hard to pin it down to a handful of specific issues and put it in this neat little box."

Hundreds of lawsuits point the finger at schools or districts when students get injuried. Among the most recent was a suit against Broward County Public Schools and the county sheriff's office - both of which a federal judge said didn't have a legal duty to protect students - after the Parkland, Florida, shooting. These cases span different issues and reached varying verdicts, but they involve the same question: To what degree are these entities liable for students' safety?

Below, we've broken down a list of cases involving a school or district's role in student safety. Here's what happened and what they mean in the debate:

M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Rebecca Jackson

What happened: In March 2011, two students at West Martinsville Middle School in Indiana were injured in a shooting: One, who was shot twice in the stomach, was targeted by the shooter - a former student known to threaten and harass his peers -

Though the shooter threatened the victim several times - and threats were reported to teachers before the shooting - teachers didn't tell the administration, court documents say. Additionally, in the suit, the victim's mother said the district didn't protect her son because certain school entrances were left unlocked and monitors weren't properly warned about the shooter being a threat, among other alleged safety breaches.

While the district argued the suit should be dismissed because it couldn't have reasonably prevented the shooting, an appeals court disagreed.

What this means: This ruling shows schools or districts can be found liable if evidence proves the event could have reasonably been prevented, either because officials had reason to believe it would take place or if their response protocol wasn't sufficiently implemented.

Scarlett Lewis, et al. v. Newtown Board of Education and Town of Newtown

What happened: In one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

In her decision, the judge said, "...Faculty and staff had to make split-second decisions ... and subjecting their decisions to scrutiny, aided by hindsight, would no less serve the public interest than subjecting a police officer's discretionary decisions to second guessing."

She added, "Emergencies, by their very nature, are sudden and often rapidly evolving events, and a response can never be 100% scripted and directed."

According to this ruling, school officials can have similar protections to police officers. Even if a school has a safety protocol, it's hard to force people to have scripted emergency responses without taking split-second judgment into account. And if someone gets hurt, it's not necessarily something for which a school or district is liable.

Sexual misconduct

Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School District

One day, the 9th-grader got her mother's permission to go to a friend's house after school, but she skipped last period. The 12th-grader raped her that afternoon. While the school day had ended when the rape happened, the girl's mom didn't know her daughter missed last period, and there were no special requirements for handling absences in her Individualized Education Program (IEP). Her mother sued the district for negligence, failing to monitor her daughter and notify her in a timely manner.

The district argued that because the rape didn't happen during school hours or on school grounds, it wasn't legally liable. But the Iowa Supreme Court ruled it could have been prevented.

What this means: This ruling doesn't imply a district or school is legally obligated to protect students outside of school hours or off school grounds in non-school activities. However, it does show that in certain cases, if evidence shows it either could have predicted or prevented such an incident from happening, they could be liable.

Shawnee Mathis, et al. v. Wayne County Board of Education, et al.

After the coach first heard about the incident, he allegedly didn't report it. One boy's parent later told the school, and the 8th-graders who were responsible were suspended for 10 days. The other boy's parent went to the school with concerns about what happened, but the suit alleges the principal didn't seem too troubled by it.

The boys continued to face harassment and were later pulled out of school. The school took some steps to prevent locker room misconduct, but in a disciplinary hearing, a committee of school officials chose not to suspend the 8th-graders for the rest of the basketball season, and the Wayne County Board of Education moved up their reinstatement date.

tudents and families who file suit often face many hurdles in proving a school or district is liable. According to the What this means: S Associated Press, districts in some states - including Virginia and Georgia - have "absolute immunity" from state-level lawsuits, while others, such as Florida, cap amounts schools must pay in damages. It's possible for a school to be held accountable, but it can be a high bar to hit.

Bullying/harassment

Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools

When the victim and her parents filed a harassment complaint with the school, the site's creator was suspended for five days for the so-called "hate website," which violated school bullying, harassment and intimidation policies. She sued, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated, because her site was private and was created outside of school.

"foreseeable " that the website would "create a substantial disruption in the school, " therefore allowing the school to control the student's speech.

Wyke v. Polk County School Board

What happened: The mother of Shawn Wyke, a 13-year-old who died by suicide, sued her son's district in Polk County, Florida, alleging administrators knew he tried to commit suicide twice at school before his death. When the dean of students found out about Wyke's first attempt, he called the student into his office and read Bible verses, according to court documents. He thought they made Wyke feel better and that he did all he could that day.

Wyke's mother sued the school board, the vice principal and the principal, alleging there was inadequate intervention and prevention training for school employees that contributed to her son's wrongful death. A district court ruled the district could be found liable due to a failure to notify Wyke's parents about what happened, and their knowledge of his two attempts made the incident foreseeable.

What this means: Hundreds of students die by suicide each year, and many parents or guardians argue schools could have done more to prevent this. But in the past, courts often haven't deemed schools and districts liable for student suicides unless it was clear officials knew a student was suicidal and did nothing, or if they intentionally made things worse.

However, the sampling of cases to examine is relatively limited. Since this suit was filed, several schools and/or districts are facing legal action for their alleged liability in similar incidents. The outcomes of those cases will reveal a lot about where the line is drawn for schools' and districts' legal responsibilities.

Brewington v. Philadelphia School District

More than a year later, the boy's mother sued the elementary school and the Philadelphia School District, alleging the lack of padding on the gym walls was dangerous and constituted negligence. The school argued it was immune from the suit, but in a December 2018 ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this claim.

The court said this incident qualified as an exception to the immunity provision, giving the boy's mom a right to sue. According to the "" if an agency doesn't put adequate safety features in place for normal or reasonable use of property, it can be sued. In this case, the court found, the lack of padding could constitute negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To what extent are districts, schools liable for students' safety?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While a school's primary goal is to educate students, another priority is providing a safe environment. It's a responsibility enforced in federal, state and local laws, but ultimately, students can - and do - get hurt. And when they do, many blame the school or district.

# data[].attributes.headline
Movement Against Discrimination in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.subject
Movement Against Discrimination in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.body
This news article highlights the CROWN Act, which has been signed into law by the California governor. California is now the first state to ban discrimination in the workplace and K-12 schools by prohibiting grooming policies which would effect people of color. This article would be a great point of discussion in regards to discrimination in the workplace. This article also is proof that progress is being made against discrimination in our schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kari Williams has worked to make her natural hair salon a refuge for black Angelenos, including those who've felt pressured to alter their hairstyles to hold on to a job.

Some customers have asked her to cut their locs - short for dreadlocks - because their bosses deemed them unacceptable. Others hadn't worn their natural hair in so long they forgot what it looked like. That's why Williams welcomes proposed state legislation that could soon make California the first state to protect black employees from discrimination based on hairstyles.

"It's important to me as a black woman," said Williams, who owns Mahogany Hair Revolution, a hair salon in Beverly Hills. "Our skin color and our hair have been used as ways to continue to keep us disenfranchised."

The CROWN Act, which passed the state Senate in April, was approved by the state Assembly on Thursday. It would outlaw policies that punish black employees and students for their hairstyles. Supporters say the bill's acronym reflects its intention: creating a respectful and open workplace for natural hair.

If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the bill would legally protect people in workplaces and K-12 public schools by prohibiting the enforcement of grooming policies that disproportionately affect people of color, particularly black people. This includes bans on certain hairstyles, such as Afros, braids, twists, cornrows and dreadlocks.

The proposal by Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), comes after Chastity Jones, a black woman from Alabama, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case in 2018 after she claimed to have lost a job offer because she refused to cut her dreadlocks.

In California, school officials in and around Fresno have sent black students home because of their curls and shaved heads. The Transportation Security Administration also ushered in new measures after facing allegations of "unnecessary, unreasonable and racially discriminatory" hair searches of black women at Los Angeles International Airport.

Nationally, black employees have filed several lawsuits, claiming to have lost jobs and faced discrimination in the workplace because of their hair.
RELATED: Black hair in Hollywood: Five women share their stories "

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

The CROWN Act would extend anti-discrimination protections in the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Education Code to include hair texture and styles. It also would amend the California government and education codes to protect against discrimination based on traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and hairstyles - affirming that targeting hairstyles associated with race is racial discrimination.

New York City officially banned natural hair discrimination in February, saying that hairstyles are protected under the city's existing anti-discrimination laws because policing black hair is a form of pervasive racism and bias. Lawmakers in New York and New Jersey also proposed legislation modeled after the CROWN Act in June.

The legislation comes 20 years after Sisterlocks, a San Diego-based natural hair care management company, successfully argued a case involving hair care discrimination. The company argued its practitioners shouldn't be required to undergo 1,600 hours of training to obtain a state license because natural hair care wasn't taught in cosmetology schools and is, in large part, a cultural practice.

"This legislation could potentially set a precedent nationally as our case did," said JoAnne Cornwell, the founder of Sisterlocks.
FROM THE ARCHIVES: How Los Angeles Sen. Holly Mitchell went from the Legislature's 'moral compass' to a top budget crafter "
Mitchell wrote the proposed legislation, SB 188, and before the Senate unanimously passed it, she described the bill's purpose as twofold: to dispel myths about black hair, its texture and the black hair experience, and to challenge what constitutes "professionalism" in the workplace.

"Eurocentric standards of beauty have established the very underpinnings of what was acceptable and attractive in the media, in academic settings and in the workplace. So even though African Americans were no longer explicitly excluded from the workplace, black features and mannerisms remained unacceptable and 'unprofessional,'" said Mitchell, a black woman.

The bill states that "blackness" and its associated physical traits - dark skin, kinky and curly hair - have long been equated to "a badge of inferiority" because of racist ideologies. And when black employees conform to narrow, Eurocentric ideas of "professionalism" by altering their appearances, there are serious economic and health consequences because of high costs and harsh chemicals, the bill says.

"Racial capital refers to this idea that the farther away you are from Eurocentric standards, the harder it is for you," said Nourbese Flint, policy director for Black Women for Wellness, a reproductive justice education and outreach organization. "If you are thinner with straighter hair, lighter skin and lighter eyes, that opens up different spaces for you. The farther away you are from [those standards], the harder it can be to get into certain spaces of privilege."

Flint said her group has worked on issues relating to hair care partly because black women are the nation's biggest consumers of hair care products and because altering one's hair can come with serious health consequences.

"We know the hair care products that black women use have some of the most toxic chemicals on the market," Flint said, adding that the most hazardous chemicals are found in products for permanently straightening hair. "But in order for us to conform to [Eurocentric] standards, we end up having to use a lot of different chemicals that are harmful to our health."

A 2018 peer-reviewed study examined the hazards of hair products, including hot-oil treatments, anti-frizz polishes, root stimulators and relaxers. The study, prepared by the Silent Spring Institute, which studies women's health and the environment, found that the products were made with chemicals linked to asthma, birth defects, reproductive issues and cancer.

These health concerns, in part, have inspired some hairstylists to emphasize education, so their customers wouldn't have to choose between their hairstyles and their health.

Williams, the salon owner, said she has a doctorate in trichology, which focuses on the care of the hair and scalp, to help women deal with the aftermath of straightening and chemically treating their hair.

"The cosmetology schools spend 1,600 hours teaching us how to destroy our hair. We don't really have formal instruction and training on how to take care of our hair, so I wanted to position myself as a resource for that," said Williams, a member of the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. "That led me to opening my salon."

In Stockton, Valonne Smith left a career of working in biotech and business development to open Natural Do, a salon where she teaches people about the health benefits of going natural.

"A reason people go natural is because they're losing their hair, which is either from the chemicals, the pulling and the tightness of the weaves," Smith said.

Michelle Laron Bryant grew up in Los Angeles practicing braids on dolls while her grandmother taught her to care for her natural hair. Now Bryant, a licensed cosmetologist and author of "Celebrating Natural Hair: For Braids, Twists, Locks and Sisterlocks," is a trainer with Sisterlocks.

When she had her daughter, Bryant wanted to model natural hair at home the same way her grandmother did for her. She saw other moms do the same.

"For a long time, I worked with a lot of mothers and daughters who were interested in being natural at a time when it wasn't encouraged because we're taught that in order to get hired or be acceptable, you had to alter our hair texture," Bryant said. "We literally had to build a community so we could support each other."

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

SB 188 is sponsored by the CROWN Coalition - a national alliance composed of the National Urban League, Western Center on Law & Poverty, Color of Change and Dove. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of California, Black Women Organized for Political Action, the California Black Chamber of Commerce and the California School Boards Assn. have also supported the legislation.

That pleases Williams, the salon owner, who once met Mitchell in a campaign office on Crenshaw Boulevard in South Los Angeles. She remembers being excited to see a black woman with locs talking about the ways people can feel confident, beautiful and healthy wearing their natural hair.

"Throughout history, our hair has been used against us," Williams said. "It's tough to move forward when our identity has been attacked."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California set to be first state to protect black people from natural hair discrimination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kari Williams has worked to make her natural hair salon a refuge for black Angelenos, including those who've felt pressured to alter their hairstyles to hold on to a job. Some customers have asked her to cut their locs - short for dreadlocks - because their bosses deemed them unacceptable.

# data[].attributes.headline
7 Takeaways for Education in the New Pa Budget

# data[].attributes.subject
7 Takeaways for Education in the New Pa Budget

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights 7 major takeaways for education in the new Pa state budget. The takeaways include no bump for the lowest-paid teachers, more years in schools, more private school tax credits, money, security and a call for a veto, charter reform fails again, and changes to teacher evaluation system. Districts and administrators should stay up to date on legal issues within the state including those that involve the educational budget. Changes in the educational budget can also impact future teacher contracts regarding salary and therefore teachers should be aware of the budget as well

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wolf proposed changing the compulsory age to 6 to 18, and although the issue helped derail passage of the budget on Thursday, lawmakers approved the idea Friday morning.

Status: Passed the General Assembly as part of the budget package. Wolf signed it.

More private school tax credits (but not as many as some hoped)

Republican leaders advocated strongly for a bill that would have nearly doubled the size of a tax-credit program that helps parents afford private school tuition.

Governor Tom Wolf vetoed the legislation, but will okay a compromise that permits the program to grow modestly and makes other changes.

At issue are two tax-break initiatives: the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC). The programs incentivize businesses and individuals to donate money for private school scholarships. In return the donors get a break on their state taxes - up to 90 percent of their donation.

State law caps the number of tax credits available, but that number has risen significantly since the program began in 2001.

With this most recent update, Pennsylvania will raise the limit on EITC tax breaks from $160 million to $185 million. The OSTC cap will jump from $50 million to $55 million, with all of that new money specifically steered toward those private schools that serve a large share of "economically disadvantaged" students.

Lawmakers also raised the eligibility limits, meaning more Pennsylvania families will be able to receive scholarships through the tax-credit programs.

A family of four will now be able to make about $121,000 a year and still receive tuition help, up from $116,000.

Supporters of the EITC and OSTC programs say it's a cost-efficient way to help families afford a private school education, especially poor families.

"These increases will allow thousands more scholarships to be awarded next year," said Nathan Benefield of the Commonwealth Foundation, a libertarian think tank, in a statement.

The Commonwealth Foundation said the $25 million EITC increase is tied for the largest one-year jump in the program's 18-year history.

On Friday, Wolf said the $100 million included in the bill he vetoed was "excessive."

"These are expenditures. They have a fiscal impact on the commonwealth. We have to be careful," Wolf said. "I was willing to go along with $25 [million]."

Critics argue the programs lack transparency and subsidize tuition for families who could otherwise afford private school.

Status: Wolf signed two new school code bills, one of which contains the changes to EITC and OSTC.

Money, money, money

As always, money was at the heart of this session's education discussion.

Governor Tom Wolf asked for increases in several major education spending categories, and got most of what he requested.

The basic education budget will go up by $160 million, a bit shy of Wolf's ask. On the special education front, Wolf's $50 million request was delivered. Meanwhile, another $25 million will go to Pre-K programs.

Wolf has stumped for greater education spending since his first run for governor, and he has continued to secure increases. But the boosts haven't kept pace with the rise in mandated costs that districts continue to face for special education, healthcare, and charter schools.

"At best, this budget keeps many schools from falling further behind, but will likely necessitate local tax increases and does not make adequate progress toward providing districts the funds necessary to provide excellent education to all students," said PA Schools Work, an advocacy group, in a statement.

A coalition of Southeastern Pennsylvania lawmakers, activists, and union officials fell short in their attempts to create a special fund for emergency school repairs. Most of the money would have gone to fix dilapidated schools in Philadelphia.

Lawmakers also debated changes to the state's special education funding commission, which convenes every five years. New language passed this week limits the commission to studying special education funding in traditional public schools. Some advocates want the state to change its special education funding formula for charter schools, which they say incentivizes charters to enroll students with lower-cost disabilities.

Status: Wolf signed the budget into law Friday afternoon.

Security and a call for a veto

Senate Bill 621 passed this week - and, on Friday, an anti-gun violence advocacy group was urging Wolf to veto it.

The bill's prime sponsor, state Sen. Mike Regan, R-York, said it would:

provide direct authority for school security guards to be armed;

correct an oversight that prevented sheriffs and deputy sheriffs from being school security guards;

and establish a baseline training for school security workers, whether they are armed or not.

CeaseFirePA, which supports increased gun restrictions, is urging Wolf to veto the bill. In an email, the group said the bill will "arm more school personnel" and "open the door to arming teachers." The Education Law Center, which advocates for vulnerable student populations, also opposes the bill.

Mike Straub, a spokesman for the House GOP Caucus, disputed that it would open the door to arming teachers.

"The bill's language specifically focuses on school resource officers, the word teacher is not found anywhere in the bill," he said in an email.

House Democrats oppose arming teachers, said caucus spokesman Bill Patton, and he said they "don't see that in this bill."

Regan's chief of staff, Bruce McLanahan, said his office doesn't think the bill opens the door to arming teachers and that was never the intention of the bill.

Gov. Wolf opposes arming teachers, and he said he wouldn't accept a bill that does that.

"I've tried to get this bill in a shape that it doesn't do that," Wolf said.

As for the concerns from CeaseFirePA and the Education Law Center about a broader expansion of which security personnel can carry guns, Wolf said he's trying to strike the right balance for school safety.

"It's a tough, tough issue," he said. "I want to do this right."

Status: The legislation, Senate Bill 621, passed the General Assembly. On Friday afternoon, Wolf said hadn't decided whether he would veto it.

Charter reform fails again

Another year, another failed attempt to reform Pennsylvania's two-decade-old charter school law.

House Republicans passed a pair of bills that drew the ire of teachers' unions and other charter opponents. Neither bill will become law this session.

The first would have created a standardized, statewide application for groups looking to form new charter schools or renew existing charter schools. That standard application would have included "conditions for renewal and termination of the contract."

Several school districts said the standardized application would curtail their ability to police charter schools and close poor performers. They also thought it would give charters the ability to expand at their discretion, which some charter skeptics saw as a threat to school district budgets.

The second bill would have given charters first dibs to buy or lease unused school district facilities.

Both bills failed, along with a pair of other charter proposals that had bipartisan support.

"Unfortunately, partisan politics took precedence once again over the best interests of Pennsylvania's students and the four charter reform bills," said Ana Meyers, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools, in a statement.

Charter critics, like the Philadelphia teachers' union, applauded the demise of the two controversial charter bills.

"The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers is pleased that the General Assembly's school code legislation was free of catastrophic charter expansion language," the PFT wrote in a press release.

Status: Stuck in 20 years of limbo

Changes to teacher evaluation system

State Sen. Ryan Aument, R-Lancaster, is trying to change a law that he sponsored in 2012.

On Monday, Aument's legislation to change Pennsylvania's teacher evaluation system passed the Senate with a 38-11 vote.

He said the new plan would give greater flexibility to administrators, by increasing the observation portion of the score, and better recognizing the effect poverty has on student performance.

Status: Passed the Senate. It is not part of the budget package, but discussions are expected to continue in the fall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven big takeaways for education in the new Pa. budget

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wolf proposed changing the compulsory age to 6 to 18, and although the issue helped derail passage of the budget on Thursday, lawmakers approved the idea Friday morning. Status: Passed the General Assembly as part of the budget package. Wolf signed it.

# data[].attributes.body
This PowerPoint presentation provides information on the dismissal process for teachers within the state of Pa. This presentation includes state statues, causes of termination, and  progressive discipline. This information would be beneficial for future or current administrators as a tool for understanding the termination process. This presentation also discussed the due process requirements of administrators to employees through the termination process.

# data[].attributes.headline
Desegregation in Schools- Are Schools Really Desegregated? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Desegregation in Schools- Are Schools Really Desegregated? 

# data[].attributes.body
This article from the New York Times covers the topic of segregation within schools and posses the belief that "separate but equal" still exists in America. The article provides activities to explore school segregation including visualizing segregation, exploring a case study, investigating the relationship between school segregation, funding and inequality, examining legal remedies, considering alternatives to integration, and learning more and taking action. This article could be beneficial for administrators to use with their staff during a professional development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Still Separate, Still Unequal: Teaching about School Segregation and Educational Inequality (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although many students learn about the struggles to desegregate schools in the civil rights era, segregation as a current reality is largely absent from the curriculum. This teaching resource uses Times articles and Op-Eds to investigate the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explores the legality of school curriculum in regards to the interest of states, districts, parents, and students. The article highlights state and school district authority in regards to curriculum by providing court cases and their rulings (case law). This information could be extremely useful for districts during the curriculum development process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Determining the legality of school curricular policies requires courts to weigh the interests of states, districts, parents, and students.
Conflicts over the public school curriculum nicely illustrate our nation's preference for balancing legal powers among multiple parties, including the state, the school district, parents, and others.

The state, in fulfillment of its authority to regulate for the well-being of its residents, and in fulfillment of its obligation to create and maintain public schools, has the authority to impose limits and obligations on both local school districts and parents. In turn - and as long as they remain within those limits - school districts (typically controlled by locally elected boards) have the authority to make educational decisions for their schools, including decisions about the curriculum and methods of instruction, while parents have the right and responsibility to raise their children and control their upbringing. (At the same time, of course, teachers, students, professional associations, local interest groups, the federal government, and other stakeholders have their own ideas about the curriculum and try, in their own ways, to shape what gets taught in public schools.)

No one rule of law explains how to balance these interests. However, the courts generally favor efforts to expand access to knowledge, rather than efforts to restrict it. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Keyishian v. Board of Regents (U.S. 1967), courts will not "tolerate . . . a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom."
State authority
To carry out their responsibility to provide for the well-being of their citizens, states establish reasonable laws regulating behavior, and sometimes the state's interest in protecting children can even override parental control. For example, this is the basis for laws that prohibit child labor and require school attendance.

Every state in the country has a compulsory attendance statute (though they vary somewhat in their age requirements and the exemptions they allow), and the courts have always upheld their right to compel attendance, ruling that the education of all citizens is vital to the welfare of the state and that the state has an interest in ensuring all children participate in an educational system. Still, the courts have set some limits on states' authority in this area:

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (U.S. 1925), the U.S. Supreme Court found a state law requiring parents to send their children to public (rather than private) schools to be unconstitutional.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder (U.S. 1972), the U.S. Supreme Court exempted an Amish family from the compulsory attendance statute for middle-school-age children because continued education ran counter to the family's religious tenets and the parents provided alternative education outside the school.

States have some authority over curriculum as well, insofar as they often set minimum curricular requirements for school districts. However, the courts have ruled that this authority is bounded by the constraints set by both the federal and the given state's constitution. For example:

In Meyer v. Nebraska (U.S. 1923), the U.S. Supreme Court found a state law prohibiting foreign language instruction in any school to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause as it was against the interest of private school foreign language teachers' need for employment and parents' desire for their children to learn foreign languages.

In Epperson v. Arkansas (U.S. 1968), an Arkansas statute that made the teaching of evolution in public schools illegal was held to be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Similarly, in Edwards v. Aguillard(U.S. 1987), the U.S. Supreme Court found a Louisiana statute, which required the "equal treatment" of evolution and creation science in state classrooms, to be unconstitutional.

And in Gonzalez v. Douglas (D. Ariz. 2017), a federal District Court ruled that two Arizona curricular statutes banning ethnic studies courses were unconstitutional. The court found an Equal Protection violation in that there was evidence of racial animus in the creation of the statute, and it found Free Speech violations in that there was no legitimate pedagogical rationale behind the statute.
School district authority
Once enrolled in a school, children are subject to its reasonable rules and requirements, both curricular and disciplinary. For example, schools may require that students take controversial subjects, and students must comply with these requirements unless there is a clear overriding interest, such as a health concern, disability, or violation of a family's religious tenets.

The authority to determine the curriculum rests with the district, not individual teachers. Teachers, as employees, must carry out that curriculum and abide by any restrictions, and they do not have a right to use whatever teaching materials and methodologies they choose if this is contrary to school policy. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals made this clear in Evans-Marshall v. Bd of Ed of Tipp City Exempted Village Sch Dist. (6th Cir. 2010), a case involving a high school English teacher who was dismissed for using classroom assignments and materials without following the appropriate steps for approval. The court stated, "Even to the extent academic freedom, as a constitutional rule, could somehow apply to primary and secondary schools, that does not insulate a teacher's curricular and pedagogical choices from the school board's oversight." (See Under the Law, December 2017, for more detail on this issue.)

Of course, that doesn't mean school districts can define the curriculum so narrowly that it violates students' constitutional rights. For example, in Board of Island Trees v. Pico (U.S. 1982), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the school district could not remove books from the school library without a legitimate pedagogical reason. To do so would violate students' free speech rights to access to information.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are also limits to what districts and schools can require children to study. For example, public school curricula, like state statutes, cannot violate the Establishment Clause. In Deal v. Mercer County Schools (4th Cir. 2018), an ongoing case from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, a family alleged that a long-standing "Bible in the Schools" class was unconstitutional as it was intended to inculcate a religion, not merely to teach about religion.

Similarly, in Doe v. Joplin School District (S.D. Mo. 2017), a federal District Court found the school's use of a religious organization for field trips and curricular material on sex education to be a violation of the Establishment Clause because the Life Choices sex education program and the Victory Ministries abstinence-only program endorsed their Christian beliefs and entangled the district with these religious organizations.

Once districts and schools have defined a legally permissible curriculum, however, courts have given them broad discretion to implement it, even over community and parents' objections. For example, school districts' curricular decisions and policies have been upheld in a number of cases:

State ex rel. Andrew v. Webber (Ind. 1886) upheld a requirement that students attend music classes over parental objections.

Mozert v. Hawkins Board of Education (6th Cir. 1987) upheld the use of a required textbook in a basic reading series over an objection that it contained objectionable material.

Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer (1st Cir. 1995) upheld a school requirement that students attend an AIDS education assembly.

Herndon v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Board of Education (4th Cir. 1996) upheld a district graduation requirement of community service over an objection that it amounted to involuntary servitude.

Leebaert v. Harrington (2nd Cir. 2003) upheld a requirement of health and family life education classes over a parent's claim that it was contrary to his right to raise his child as he saw fit.

Parker v. Hurley (1st Cir. 2008) upheld the use of a book in primary grades that portrayed diverse families, including a gay marriage, over a parental claim that they should have the opportunity to opt out their child.

And Brinsdon v. McAllen Ind. School District (5th Cir. 2016) upheld a classroom assignment requiring students to memorize and recite the Mexican Pledge of Allegiance and sing the Mexican National anthem as a part of a language exercise.

When facing objections to particular lessons or courses of study, many districts choose to make provisions for parents to opt students out of the given activity or unit. But in general, parents and children must comply with reasonable curricular rules.

No doubt, this balancing act can be a tricky one, but at least the broad parameters are clear: On one hand, the federal constitution has primacy; on the other, each state has the authority to create and control school districts and define their standards and curriculum. As long as these two principles are observed, the courts generally defer to educational decision makers, while preferring to expand, rather than contract, the body of knowledge presented within schools.

Citation: Underwood, J. (2019). Under the law: The legal balancing act over public school curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 100 (6), 74-75.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The legal balancing act over public school curriculum - kappanonline.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Determining the legality of school curricular policies requires courts to weigh the interests of states, districts, parents, and students. Conflicts over the public school curriculum nicely illustrate our nation's preference for balancing legal powers among multiple parties, including the state, the school district, parents, and others.