January 26, 2006
Fullerton on Fox
Those of you following the Fullerton Laptop Program should know that Fox News did a story on the controversy, and will probably replay it throughout the day.
Those of you who care, will realize that this blog beat Fox News by almost 30 days on this story...
Are we Fair & Balanced? You be the judge!
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/keaney/archives/2006/01/live_free_but_n.html#comments
Comments
The Fullerton Laptop Program & The Free School Guarantee
Much has been said and written about the Fullerton School District’s “Laptops for Learning” 1:1 laptop program, whereby elementary and junior high-aged children at four Fullerton schools have access to an Apple iBook laptop computer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at a cost of approximately $1,500 per computer, per child. Fullerton parents (and most recently the ACLU of Southern California) have questioned whether or not the laptop program violates our children’s right a free public education as guaranteed under the California Constitution.
WHAT DOES THE LAW REALLY SAY?
The controlling case with respect to school fees is the 1984 California Supreme Court case of Hartzell v. Connell. In Hartzell, the Santa Barbara High School District, in the face of decreased revenue for public school funding, adopted a plan whereby students would be charged $25 for participation on each athletic team, as well as $25 for participation in each other extracurricular activity (drama, vocal music groups, band and cheerleading). The District’s plan also provided for a fee waiver program whereby students with financial need could apply for a scholarship.
A lawsuit was filed, which claimed the School District’s plan violated California’s free school and equal protection guarantees.
The Hartzell court noted that the California Constitution mandated that the legislature “provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district. . . .” The court went on to discuss the history of the free school guarantee in California and its importance to a democratic form of government.
The fees at issue in the Hartzell case pertained to extracurricular activities. However, the court clearly indicated it valued extracurricular as much as curricular activities by stating that extracurricular activities are “no less fitted for the ultimate purpose of our public schools, to wit, the making of good citizens physically, mentally, and morally, than the study of algebra and Latin. . . .’”
The Hartzell court went on to state that “all educational activities – curricular or ‘extracurricular’ – offered to students by school districts fall within the free school guarantee . . . .”
It’s interesting that in attempting to defend charging $1,500 for a laptop computer, the Fullerton School District has repeatedly cited that per pupil funding in California is far below that of other States. The Santa Barbara High School District also raised issues pertaining to budgetary constraints. However, the Hartzell court dismissed those argues and indicated “financial hardship is no defense to a violation of the free school guarantee.” The court also stated that equally accessible “public education is not contingent upon the inevitably fluctuating financial health of local school districts. A solution to those financial difficulties must be found elsewhere . . . .”
The Fullerton School District has indicated that no child has been excluded from participating in the laptop program because of “financial hardship” and that such children can obtain fee waivers or financial assistance. The Santa Barbara High School District also had a fee waiver provision in place. However, the Hartzell court dismissed the School Board’s argument that the fee waiver provision of its plan satisfied the free school guarantee. The Court held “the free school guarantee reflects the people’s judgment that a child’s public education is too important to be left to the budgetary circumstances and decisions of individual families. It makes no distinction between needy and non-needy families. . . . The free school guarantee lifts budgetary decisions concerning public education out of the individual family setting and requires that such decisions be made by the community as a whole. Once the community has decided that a particular educational program is important enough to be offered by its public schools, a student’s participation in that program cannot be made to depend upon his or her family’s decision whether to pay a fee or buy a toaster.”
The Fullerton School District has clearly made the decision that the laptop program is important enough to be offered to our children. As the Fullerton School District is mandated by law to comply with the free school guarantee as set forth in the California Constitution and the Hartzell case, the laptop program must be offered free of charge. Although the requirement to comply with the free school guarantee may create financial hardships for our public school district, or force them to make tough choices regarding what kinds of programs it can offer, the California Supreme Court held that the potential damage to students created by ineffective fee policies clearly outweighs the need for some of these programs.
The Hartzell case achieves the goals of public education and ensures that the children of needy and non-needy families are provided an education. That education can come in many forms, including laptop computers, athletics, choir, drama or band. However, all California public school districts – including the Fullerton School District – must provide all educational activities – curricular or extracurricular – in accordance with the law and in keeping with the free school guarantee.
In summary, the State of California provides for a system of free public education in its Constitution. If a school district cannot afford a particular program, the solution is not to turn to parents to fund their child’s education, as those same parents have already paid for their child’s education through the payment of taxes. To request the parents to pay more would be tantamount to double taxation. The best forum for changes in school fee policies is at the State level (by contacting your State representatives and showing up on election day).
The Fullerton School District’s laptop program is not being funded by the District. Instead, the District has turned to parents and required that they pay almost $1,500 in order for their child to participate in the program. Is this a violation of California law? If it is, are you willing to sit idly by while the Fullerton School District violates your child’s rights? If you let them charge for a laptop, what next — textbooks? science materials? rent on your child’s desk?
My advice? Demand that the Fullerton School District abide by the law and not force you to pay-to-learn.
Heather Sutherland
Fullerton Parents for Good Public Education
www.FullertonParents.org
Heather,
Are the Fullerton parents planning on filing a lawsuit?
Scott
I saw this story on KCAL 9 yesterday. It turns out that Tim and the ACLU are on the same side in this fight. Tim and the ACLU together. Maybe there is hope for you yet Tim.
When DOES hell freeze over?
Tim
I would say the ACLU is siding with Tim, not the other way around. Politics always make strange bedfellows...
Scott
The ACLU, Fox News, The Star, The Acorn - They're all just stooges for the No Issues Left Behind blog...
I knew it, I knew it..
How else do you explain the sudden interest in Fullerton laptops and paycheck protection?
Tim, do you think a lawsuit should be filed to stop this laptop nonsense. If you had to shell out 1,500 for a mandatory, district-controlled laptop would you feel it was the right thing to do?
Scott
Scott - Great question to Tim!! Tim -- would you shell out $1,500 for a laptop in a public school? I can't wait to hear the answer... What about you Scott? Heather
Scott,
Based on what I have read, a law suit is probably going to need to be brought to stop this action by Fullerton. Or a recall election, or both.
My family (ok, my wife) and my company have donated countless hours to our school, our district and in the raising of money for schools. We've donated business services, supplies, cash etc...
Would I pay $1500 (read $3,000, I have two kids), to buy Apple laptops for my kids, who already have PC's at home? Their PC's are loaded with educational software and we personally escort them around the web.
My local school district is WOEFULLY inadequate when it comes to technology - They don't even update the district web site. Most classroom computers don't work.
Would I trust my school district with cash for laptops?
UH - NOPE. Not a chance in hell.
T
I think Tim should call the ACLU and sign onto the lawsuit as a friend of the plaintiff. But also Tim why did you say "When hell freezes over"? The ACLU is dedicated to defending the Bill of Rights. Are you against the Bill of Rights?
Oh Arleigh...
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the ACLU is the Grandfather of them all.
Even most Democrats despise what the ACLU stands for, which AIN'T the Bill of Rights.
T
Heather:
I would not support the proposal floated by the Fullerton school district, but I would also need to make sure my wife was on board with our opposition before I would involve our family in a public fight...
The Fullerton school district would have to show me studies that prove this program works and describe for me the objectives of this program for my wife and I to evaluate and make a decision for our own family.
I would approach this along the same lines as you have, meeting with trustees and trying to work out a solution. I think the district has yet to explain what they hope to accomplish and this is troublesome...
It simple for them, they should just say... "By the end of this program, your child should be able to do..."
Next I'd work with other parents, schools, and other interests to draw up a technology plan for the whole district and present it to other schools within the district. I would try to gain buy-in from other non-active parts of this fight. It always takes coalitions. The reason they are doing what they are doing is because they can pick on one school and get away with it. They figure you won't start reaching out to other interest groups and build a coalition. You all should reach out to other schools and parents.
Armies always scare people, especially those in power.
Other schools can't be happy with this proposal either. I mean the district is fighting parents on mandatory computers while other schools in the district probably have been forgotten. I would feed that discontent and build a coalition.
Then, strike back with a district-wide coalition of parents to get a better deal. I would work with others to develop an alternative program that is cheaper, more effective, allows parents computer choice, and enhances parental involvement while also including other schools. I'd present it for adoption, demand it get agendized for public discussion, and they would most likely vote against it.
Then, other options would be presented...
Heather, all I can say is this is your school board. If they don't listen, fight back like a pit bull. Once you bite, don't let go. If you commit yourself to battle you must commmit yourself to total victory. Good luck.
Scott
Tim,
Name a case the ACLU brought forward that did not involve a question based on the Bill of Rights?
Man...I can't believe i MISSED this.
I go to one of the schools here that have the 1:1 Laptop Program.
And me..? Well you should see all the things students are doing that aren't educational.
The Fullerton Laptop Program & The Free School Guarantee
Much has been said and written about the Fullerton School District’s “Laptops for Learning” 1:1 laptop program, whereby elementary and junior high-aged children at four Fullerton schools have access to an Apple iBook laptop computer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at a cost of approximately $1,500 per computer, per child. Fullerton parents (and most recently the ACLU of Southern California) have questioned whether or not the laptop program violates our children’s right a free public education as guaranteed under the California Constitution.
WHAT DOES THE LAW REALLY SAY?
The controlling case with respect to school fees is the 1984 California Supreme Court case of Hartzell v. Connell. In Hartzell, the Santa Barbara High School District, in the face of decreased revenue for public school funding, adopted a plan whereby students would be charged $25 for participation on each athletic team, as well as $25 for participation in each other extracurricular activity (drama, vocal music groups, band and cheerleading). The District’s plan also provided for a fee waiver program whereby students with financial need could apply for a scholarship.
A lawsuit was filed, which claimed the School District’s plan violated California’s free school and equal protection guarantees.
The Hartzell court noted that the California Constitution mandated that the legislature “provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district. . . .” The court went on to discuss the history of the free school guarantee in California and its importance to a democratic form of government.
The fees at issue in the Hartzell case pertained to extracurricular activities. However, the court clearly indicated it valued extracurricular as much as curricular activities by stating that extracurricular activities are “no less fitted for the ultimate purpose of our public schools, to wit, the making of good citizens physically, mentally, and morally, than the study of algebra and Latin. . . .’”
The Hartzell court went on to state that “all educational activities – curricular or ‘extracurricular’ – offered to students by school districts fall within the free school guarantee . . . .”
It’s interesting that in attempting to defend charging $1,500 for a laptop computer, the Fullerton School District has repeatedly cited that per pupil funding in California is far below that of other States. The Santa Barbara High School District also raised issues pertaining to budgetary constraints. However, the Hartzell court dismissed those argues and indicated “financial hardship is no defense to a violation of the free school guarantee.” The court also stated that equally accessible “public education is not contingent upon the inevitably fluctuating financial health of local school districts. A solution to those financial difficulties must be found elsewhere . . . .”
The Fullerton School District has indicated that no child has been excluded from participating in the laptop program because of “financial hardship” and that such children can obtain fee waivers or financial assistance. The Santa Barbara High School District also had a fee waiver provision in place. However, the Hartzell court dismissed the School Board’s argument that the fee waiver provision of its plan satisfied the free school guarantee. The Court held “the free school guarantee reflects the people’s judgment that a child’s public education is too important to be left to the budgetary circumstances and decisions of individual families. It makes no distinction between needy and non-needy families. . . . The free school guarantee lifts budgetary decisions concerning public education out of the individual family setting and requires that such decisions be made by the community as a whole. Once the community has decided that a particular educational program is important enough to be offered by its public schools, a student’s participation in that program cannot be made to depend upon his or her family’s decision whether to pay a fee or buy a toaster.”
The Fullerton School District has clearly made the decision that the laptop program is important enough to be offered to our children. As the Fullerton School District is mandated by law to comply with the free school guarantee as set forth in the California Constitution and the Hartzell case, the laptop program must be offered free of charge. Although the requirement to comply with the free school guarantee may create financial hardships for our public school district, or force them to make tough choices regarding what kinds of programs it can offer, the California Supreme Court held that the potential damage to students created by ineffective fee policies clearly outweighs the need for some of these programs.
The Hartzell case achieves the goals of public education and ensures that the children of needy and non-needy families are provided an education. That education can come in many forms, including laptop computers, athletics, choir, drama or band. However, all California public school districts – including the Fullerton School District – must provide all educational activities – curricular or extracurricular – in accordance with the law and in keeping with the free school guarantee.
In summary, the State of California provides for a system of free public education in its Constitution. If a school district cannot afford a particular program, the solution is not to turn to parents to fund their child’s education, as those same parents have already paid for their child’s education through the payment of taxes. To request the parents to pay more would be tantamount to double taxation. The best forum for changes in school fee policies is at the State level (by contacting your State representatives and showing up on election day).
The Fullerton School District’s laptop program is not being funded by the District. Instead, the District has turned to parents and required that they pay almost $1,500 in order for their child to participate in the program. Is this a violation of California law? If it is, are you willing to sit idly by while the Fullerton School District violates your child’s rights? If you let them charge for a laptop, what next — textbooks? science materials? rent on your child’s desk?
My advice? Demand that the Fullerton School District abide by the law and not force you to pay-to-learn.
Heather Sutherland
Posted by: Heather Sutherland at January 26, 2006 10:38 AMFullerton Parents for Good Public Education
www.FullertonParents.org