California's Children

Supreme Court: conceived in vitro after dad's death, kids can't collect survivor $

UPDATE, May 22, 2012: The answer to the question posed in the headline is "no," according to the unanimous Supreme Court decision handed down yesterday, that upheld the governments "multi-part definition of who qualifies as a survivor under the Social Security law. David Savage, writing on the decision for the Los Angeles Times, quotes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Tragic circumstances gave rise to this case,” said [Ginsburg],noting that Robert Capato died of cancer in Florida in 2002 before he and his wife, Karen, could have the family they envisioned. [Karen Caputo the conceived twins, via in vitro fertilization, 18 months after her husband's death; these are the children for whom survivor benefits were sought. See full story below.]

Its officials said a “natural child” is one who “could inherit” the father’s property under state law.  Under Florida law, “children conceived after a parent’s death” are not entitled to inherit his property, Ginsburg said. The children were not named in his will.

The court’s opinion in Astrue vs. Capato said the result might well be different in other states, such as California. She said “posthumously conceived children” can inherit property in California “if the child is in utero within two years of a parent’s death.”  [Ginsburg] cited similar provisions in Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana and North Dakota.

March 15, 2012: Arguments will be heard on Monday, March 19, before the U.S. Supreme Court in Astrue v. Capato; the "plain English" nutshell of the case -- thanks to SCOTUS blog -- is: 

Whether a child who was conceived after the death of his biological father can receive Social Security benefits as his father’s surviving child.(Legal description:  Whether a child who was conceived after the death of a biological parent, but who cannot inherit personal property from that biological parent under applicable state intestacy law, is eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.)

"Grossly ineffective" teachers w/tenure violate student civil rights, suit claims

May 16, 2012: A lawsuit filed by 8 students in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Monday challenges the constitutionality of 5 California statutes that govern teacher tenure rules, seniority protections, and the teacher dismissal process.  The suit claims the statutes violate the students' right to equal protection under law and deprive them of equal access to education.

Howard Blume reported on the litigation for the LA Times.

The suit names Gov Jerry Brown, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, the state Department of Education, Los Angeles Unified School District and Alum Rock Union (an elementary school on San Jose's East Side) as the defendants. The legal team includes Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., at left, a first amendment rights lawyer with LA's major law firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, and Theodore B. Olson, U.S. Solicitor General (2001-2004). The funding is coming from philanthropist Eli Broad.

"...the courts are not the right place to make school employment policy." -- Los Angeles Times editorial, May 16, 2012.

"LOL!  Of course the Times would like this matter handled by the Legislature rather than the Courts.  The Legislature is powerless in the face of their teacher union masters to do anything that would substantially change this archaic and unneeded practice...." Condor001, a commenter on the LAT editorial.  

A new non-profit, Students Matter, founded by Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur David F. Welch  is leading the legal challenge to overturn the statutes; several people on itss advisory committtee have faced off with teachers' unions in the past, according to the LAT:

The advisory committee includes Students First, a group headed by former District of Columbia schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee; Democrats for Education Reform, whose California branch is led by former State Senator [and unsuccessful candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction] Gloria Romero; and Parent Revolution.... Also on the committee is  former president of the state Board of Education Ted Mitchell's New Schools Venture Fund ...and Sacramento-based Education Trust-West, an advocacy and research group.

From the complaint:

California students assigned to grossly ineffective teachers who are employed and continue teaching as a direct result of the (5 challenged) statutes are denied equal access to the fundamental right to education required by article IX, sections 1 and 5 of the Constitution of the State of California.

Moreover, as a result of the same statutes, grossly ineffective teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools serving predominantly minority and economically disadvantaged students. Those statutes thus make the quality of education provided to school-age children in California a function of race and/or the wealth of a child's parents and neighbors in violation of the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution.

Listen to the California Report:

2012-05-16 tenure lawsuit

 Written for California's Children by Elizabeth J Carlyle.

Santa Rosa: Doyle Park closure for French charter delayed 1 year

UPDATE, May 16, 2012: Doyle Park Elementary school in Santa Rosa, threatened with closure -- so that a French-focused charter school could open in its location --  will remain open for another year as the result of the settlement of a lawsuit filed by parents, teachers and community members,  reports Martin Espinoza for the Press-Democrat. 

Santa Rosa City Schools (SRCS) board president Larry Haenel announced Monday evening that the board had settled the lawsuit by agreeing to delay the closure of the predominantly Hispanic elementary school one more year (see background stories below).

According to the (settlement) document:

- As of July 1, the Doyle Park campus will operate as a satellite campus of Brook Hill Elementary School under the administration of the Brook Hill principal.

- If the 2012-13 school year at Doyle Park results in fewer than 18 students for each of grades 1, 2, and 3, or fewer than 25 students per grades 4, 5, and 6 “there will be a presumption that the under-enrolled class is not financially feasible.” Children in under-enrolled classes likely will be reassigned to a another school.

- The Santa Rosa French American Charter School will share the Doyle Park campus for the 2012-13 school year. The schools will share common facilities, but the French charter school will have exclusive use of the kindergarten playground.

The district also agreed to amend its school closure policy to include language that calls for promoting “racial and ethnic balance.”...and to “fast track” the feasibility of a Spanish language dual immersion charter school and, if created, to find an appropriate site for it.

 

Fresno USD's Hanson refutes special ed claims

UPDATE, May 10, 2012: California Watch has provided the PDF of a letter, written on May 4, from Michael Hanson, at left, superintendent of the Fresno Unified School District, to "Dear Colleagues," in which Hanson says the story by Joanna Lin (as previously reported, below) "paints a very inaccurate picture ...I did not, nor would I ever, make a promise that would obviously fall outside of the bounds of the procedures established by our School Board....We have over 7,000 kids receiving Special Education services in our district, but in five years, we’ve only had three families reach the due process stage resulting in the complicated procedure as outlined in today’s story -- something that is almost unheard of in a district our size."

May 4, 2012: Were a family's procedural rights violated when their 14-year-old son, enrolled in special education, was expelled without consideration for his disability?  

The Fresno Unified School District is now embroiled in two legal battles: one between the district and the board of education and another between the district and the family of the boy. The case underscores the complications of the special education system and its regulations and procedures because the father is a reporter for the Fresno Bee (who once had the school district as his beat), and the mother is an R.N. 

"No matter how smart parents are, this whole special ed world is so convoluted and so messary and so procedurally complicated." --  Prudence Hutton, a San Francisco attorney who specializes in special education dispute resolution.

The story, reported by Joanna Lin, is featured today on California Watch. An excerpt:

When a special education student faces disciplinary action, such as expulsion, that could change where he receives services, a district must first consider whether the student’s misconduct stemmed from his disability or the district’s failure to implement his individualized education program.... a federally mandated document that identifies a special education student’s needs, guides related services and sets educational goals. 

Disciplinary issues are addressed at an IEP meeting known as a manifestation determination review. Neither [parent in this story] had ever heard of the review before attending their son’s; they received just one-day notice of the meeting....

Miramonte parents sue LAUSD under new court decision

UPDATE, May 10, 2012: Following the California Supreme Court decision in March by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, at left, (see background stories below), who ruled school districts could be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, 20 former Miramonte Elementary students have filed a  lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unfied School District, the principal and several school board members.

From the LA Times:

The lawsuit said that the district essentially ignored student allegations. It names several complaints filed against the teacher, including one in 1993 in which a student claimed to have been fondled by [Berndt]. The lawsuit states that no changes were made to the district's “policies, training or supervision, or other actions to protect students," after the complaints.

March 11, 2012: A California Supreme Court decision last Thursday ruled that school districts are legally liable for injuries (e.g., emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness, fear) suffered by a student from sexual abuse if district officials are shown to be negligent in the hiring or supervising of the employee who commits the abuse, reports Maura Dolan for the Los Angeles Times.

The ruling, written by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, at left, concurred unanimously in the case of C.A.v. William S. Hart Union High School District et al., (WHUHSD) involving a Golden Valley High School (Santa Clarita Valley in LA County) school counselor, Roselyn Hubbell, and a 14-year-old male student. Writing that the molestations often took place off campus while driving him home, it proved a lack of adequate supervision on the part of the WHUHSD, therefore making the district liable: