Will the House of Student's Defy the Court?

With another possible election around the corner, the house of students grow a little restless with the fact that this business is left unresolved. Did the courts overstep their jurisdiction by recommending a reelection? Was it the job of the court to invalidate Latimore's candidacy or the election? In light of this question, students want this issue resolved so they can move on to the business of governing. How will the vacancy of the presidency be filled? The problem is that the school's constitution is silent on this issue which is why the court recommended an entirely new race. But as some student representatives argued last night, is it fair to allow new candidates into a race when the other two candidates that originally ran were more than qualified? Are the many freshman who were nominated to run for office really interested in leading? Why didn't they run before? Indeed these are philosophical questions worth pondering but their answers might not lead this government to any real solution. So the House of Students considered a few option. 1. conduct a new election or 2. have the interim president (Doriean, who was a candidate for this year and was last year's president) step down and let the Vice President hold the position of president temporarily in order to enact an executive order that would essentially ignore the court's recommendation and send ballots to the people with only Lee and Jackson's name on the ticket.

Student Petition to Amend the Constitution

Taking on the task of changing the qualifications for office, sophomore Christa Pullins has created an on-line petition.

www.ipetitions.com/petition/CHS/index.html

Judge Vacancies

There are 3 vacancies open to the student body for the position of judge.

Article III, Section II says that "To serve as judge one must be at least in the 10th grade, with the exception of 2006 candidates."

Section V goes on to say that "if a position becomes vacant, student not holding a position in the school government may be nominated and elected to fill the vacancy provided s/he meets the qualifications for that office. "

Davidson v. Latimore 2007-01

Constitution High School Court
Davidson v. Latimore 2007-01
Argued November 30, 2007----Decided December 5th, 2007

Syllabus
The election of Todd Latimore 2007-08 school President was challenged by petitioner principal Dr. Thomas R. Davidson. Dr. Davidson challenged the validity of the election based on the School’s Constitution qualifications for office which states that “No more than two EH-20 documented violations of the Student Code of Conduct.” During the nomination process, school government advisors check prospective candidates’ academic and behavior records. On October 31, advisor Resa McMillan confirmed the defendant’s records and approved his candidacy. Prior to the election, both government advisors warned the defendant about the two violations discovered and to be more cognizant of his behavior. Before the November 21 Election Day, more violations of the Code of Conduct were recorded and the advisors were unaware of these occurrences until the next day of school after the election. Presented with these facts, is the election of Todd Latmore valid? When deciding this case, the judges looked at the following issues:
1. If the behavior of the defendant is consistent with the student body’s expectations of their President
2. If conducting background checks after the election in a timely fashion is appropriate and can invalidate an election
3. If past cases and rulings cited in the defendants arguments are accurately applied

Judge Brasof and Judge Sanders delivered the opinion of the court in which Judge Davis, Judge Johnson, Judge Green, and Judge Morson-Green joined unanimously (6-0).

Held:

1. The election of Todd Latimore is null and void because he does not meet the qualifications of office as stipulated in the Article II, Section II which states that, “no more than two EH-20 documented violations of the Student Code of Conduct.”
2. It is not the sole responsibility of the government advisors to verify a candidate’s academic and behavior record. However, records should now be checked the day of the election.
3. This court also recommends the government advisors to reopen the nomination process and hold another election for the position of school President.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sanders and Judge Brasof delivered the opinion of the court.

I
Purpose of the School’s Constitution
In Constitution High School’s first constitutional crisis, it is the job of this court to determine the facts of the case and if those actions violated the laws of the school.

The laws of the school are determined by the School District of Philadelphia Code of Conduct and Constitution High School’s Constitution. The purpose of our school’s constitution is to empower students and facilitate open conversations between students, faculty, and administration about the way in which our school operates. By creating a balanced bill writing process and judicial review, students and faculty established formal channels to create, challenge, and amend rules. In addition, the School District of Philadelphia provides a process to challenge actions taken against students by the administration. All students and staff members at Constitution High School contributed to the writing of the school’s constitution in the 2006 and amended it in the 2007. Essentially, if a student does not agree with a rule then there are other options available to a student besides excessively violating it. In that the behavior qualifications were not changed nor challenged and ample opportunity to challenge Article II Section II was and still is provided, the court finds that all candidates and government officials must follow the letter of the law.

II
Applying the School’s Constitution to this Case
It is the job of this court to identify if the Constitution has been violated and determine a resolution (Article III, Section I). This court applies Article II, Section I (Purpose of the Executive Branch) and Section II (Qualifications) to facts of this case.

The President’s job is to enforce school policy and act as a liaison between the students, staff, and administration (Article II, Section I). We find that the President of the student body should not only know the rules but how to utilize the written procedures to correct any rules that are not aligned with the school’s constitution. For example, Todd Latimore’s contention that he must skip class in order to complete assignments for other classes is deemed unacceptable by this court. Simply speaking to the teacher about the need to be out of class is an option a student can exercise. Skipping classes is a reason for a EH-20 documented violation (See Code of Conduct, pg 6, 3.1)

By stipulating that a student may not have “more than two EH-20 documented violations of the Student Code of Conduct” the school population considers that ability to know and follow rules an essential qualification to hold this office. Todd Latimore clearly does not meet the behavior requirement to run or hold office.

II

Conducting background checks after the election in a timely fashion is appropriate and can invalidate an election. The Office of the Principal maintains a main file that houses all EH-20 violations for the current year. It is not the official job of the Principal to give verbal report to teachers about the behavior for each student nor for teachers to share information. Additionally, sharing information on student’s behavior for the sake of improving student performance is not a requirement of the job, nor inappropriate. The school constitution does not address the need for background checks up to the day of elections and it is obvious from this case that candidates’ records need to be examined more often. However, it is not unreasonable that once government advisor Ms. McMillan checked the records to assume that student conduct would be aligned with the school’s code during the campaigning process. In addition, candidates were informed in writing and verbally at an after-school meeting of the election rules, one being that conduct should be aligned with the student code of conduct. Finally, this court assumes that students know their constitution since they wrote and studied it and are aware of their behavior record due to the open nature in which EH-20 violations are processed.

Analysis of Latimore’s Defense
Latimore’s counsel, Andrew Howard, cites the case of Jeffrey McCall v. Colorado as precedent when the Supreme Court ruled against removing a judge simply for not upholding the requirements to become a lawyer. Howard argued that the McCall decision restricts the courts from invalidating Latimore’s candidacy based on not upholding the qualifications of office. But in this case, McCall not following through with his studies is not a violation of the law nor a prerequisite for becoming a judge. If McCall were to break the law, he theoretically could be removed. In addition, these accusations against McCall were made thirteen years after holding the position making the necessity to take two missed college courses unpractical. In contrast, Mr. Latimore clearly has broken many rules stipulated by the school code of conduct and the school’s Constitution with an excessive amount of EH-20 violations for the 2007-08 school year to date. Furthermore, Mr. Latimore has not served a day in office and, therefore is it appropriate to correct this mistake before the new officers are installed.

Additionally, the logic Howard applied to this case regarding the public’s questioning of George W. Bush’s military record during his candidacy for President does not apply in this matter. That is, having a military record is not a constitutional requirement in order to serve as President of the United States whereas our school’s constitution clearly enumerates behavior qualifications.

Conclusive Remarks
Consequently, this court does not agree with the defense’s application of the McCall and Bush cases to support the argument that “it is unconstitutional to allow a candidate to run if they do not meet the requirements, but (if) permitted to run you can not strip the candidate of an award once they have gain(ed) success.” Finally, a large mandate from the student body does not precede the school’s social contract established through the constitution. As stated in this opinion, other processes within the constitution have been established if the rules of our social contract need adjustment. This court encourages the student body and faculty to exhaust their constitutional options to correct problems in our school before petitioning the court.

ELECTION CHALLENGED!

On 11/21 executive branch elections were held at the National Constitution Center. Each candidate for treasurer, Vice President, President, and Secretary had 3 minutes to make a speech discussing their qualifications and what their vision for their term in office. After speeches, candidates were asked prepared questions.

a. With the failure of Amendment 12, freshmen are denied the opportunity to serve on the Judicial Branch. What is your position on this issue?
b. What measures do you plan to take to create a friendly atmosphere between and within classes in our school?
c. Respond to this situation: You know of a possible altercation about to happen involving 2 or more students at CHS. What is your role as a leader of our school’s community?

Each candidate could respond to these questions as well as address their opponents' positions. Finally, questions were open to the student body. One question was about improving school lunches while another one was directed at comments made in a speech by a presidential candidate. Afterwards, students lined up at the polls and voted!

11/26. A teacher has made the government advisees aware that the winner of the Presidential candidacy is unqualified as stipulated by the school's constitution. The principal is challenging the decision and has petitioned the court to correct this issue and make recommendations on how to fill such a vacancy in a timely manner. The defendant will have his day in court most likely Friday. With the likelihood that the court will rule in favor of the principal to avoid contradicting the constitution, this process has partly been initiated to open a conversation with the student body about leadership that holds students accountable to students.

Amending Convention

Our inaugural class in 2006-07 wrote the school's constitution in conjunction with a 9-week study of the U.S. Constitution. The principal provided the okay for students to create a government that would reflect the concepts and structure of our federal government. Students worked for weeks in 6 different classes writing articles, presenting, and debating. After each class had developed a constitution, we were able to combine 2 classes at a time and create 3 constitutions. Finally, we called a half-day Constitutional Convention and the entire student body and faculty completed the process by deliberating and writing the final school-wide constitution. Ratification successful occurred the following week and Constitution High School cemented the most powerful and unique school government in the country. Some processes and powers are replicas of the federal government such as how a bill becomes a law while others are adaptations. For instance, the President nominates two faculty judges which are then confirmed by both the House of Students and Faculty Senate. Then the two faculty judges interview prospective candidates to fill the other seven positions. Students wanted to ensure that the judicial branch would be free from a possible popularity race. A later post will have the original constitution and the most recent amendments that the new freshman and sophomore class ratified after another 2 weeks of preparation and half-day Constitution Convention.

The 2006-07 class wrote a usable constitution but its flaws were revealed as government came into operation. Students did not create mechanisms to fill vacancies and individual rights were not addressed. Unexpected issues such as how transfer students would be treated for positions that required passing of the U.S. Constitution course and a general code of conduct for government meetings. Tension also emerged once the new freshman discovered language in the constitution that favored upperclassmen such as grade-level requirement to become a judge. Philosophical discussions as to the nature of leadership came to a head when some students wanted to raise the grade average requirement for office from C to B. Members of government wanted executive positions duties enumerated and a judicial branch with a greater role. Some mistakes such as executive branch term limits were never written into the original and for a moment the cabinet did not want to address the issue so power would stay in their hands. Most of these issues were resolved in the amending convention on October 26, 2007.

An interesting pattern emerged when students and faculty voted on each of the 25 amendments. Below is an email I sent to our school community after the votes for ratification were tallied.

Staff and Partners,

We have data to prove that our program is creating active citizens. After tallying all the ballots, the amending committee (Doriean, Charles, Diamond, Ms. McMillan, and Mr. Brasof) discovered a voting pattern. Raising grade requirements to serve in government was denied across the board (3 different amendments). In addition, amendments creating equity between the classes passed. Enough freshmen were also convinced that judgeships should not be open to their class due to lack of experience. All of these decisions reflect thoughtful debate within our classes and during the convention. Therefore, these trends display our students' ability to distinguish between which amendments are appropriate and which do not reflect the values and ideas of the majority of students and faculty. Our school took this task seriously and we all should be proud.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The convention created a strong interest in government and we now have quite a contest on our hands for all executive positions and some advisories for a representative position in the House of Students.

Overview of Government Structure

Students, teachers, administrators, and the education department at the National Constitution Center developed a school governance model that consisted of a executive branch, faculty senate, house of students, and school court. This government models the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches at the federal level. Powers are separated and a system of checks and balances is enumerated in the school’s constitution. This constitution was written by the first class of students in 2006-07 school year and has been amended since in their freshman-level Constitution course. Applying the concept of federalism and the Article VII supreme law of the land in the U.S. Consitution, our constitution expresses that policies within the school cannot contradict those of the Philadelphia School District. Being that many of the district's policies are broad in nature creates avenues for student and administrative interpretations. In addition, the principal maintains an independent office yet is part of the Constitution. For example, the principal is part of the bill signing process and his/her veto can be overturned. Congress consists of the Faculty Senate which all staff members are part of and a House of Students where two representatives from each homeroom work together to build school programs and policies. Another unique aspect of our school’s government is that a 9 member court, consisting of two faculty judges and the rest students, can interpret laws created within the school as well as take part in peer mediation. With the support of our partner Ballard & Spahr, we are building a functioning court room where Appellate Judge Rendell, an advisor to our school, will sit and conduct court proceedings.

This model of school governance, which will be described in great detail in the following blogs, was created to give students real power in the school, provide an avenue to practice civic engagement that values proactive attitudes and behaviors, and train students in the art of governing.

Should high school students have more power?

Why do most Americans complain about their government and the plethora of issues in our society yet are not actively involved in creating solutions? Are students indirectly taught to complain or ignore problems when they are not given an equal voice in creating solutions, participate in coursework that does not directly engross them in the application of civic power, and are powerless to address and correct issues within their own school community? Is there a possibility correlation between this lack of student ownership in their own school community and the molding of an apathetic and disillusioned citizenry? For example, why is it that when a group of students choose to drink irresponsibily or fight students are not creating practical solutions but instead have to yield to rules that only punish instead of creating positive resolutions? Can we honestly say that these rules truly teach the value of finding solutions to conflicts? Can students really understand the nature of creating and implementing rules when they are only the receivers? Could involving the entire school in the process of issue identification and solution creation create more powerful and accepted social contracts? What real voices do students have in the formation and implementation of the programs of studies and rules that are suppose to serve their interests? In essence, can school government be more than a popularity contest and futile attempts to shape administrative and teacher directives by simply changing its structure, making it more accessible, and enumerating more power in a school constitution? Perhaps with a new form of school government I might be able to find answers to these tough questions.

Student governments are generally powerless and are focused on creating social activities such as planning dances, essentially making them more of a party committee than an actual governing body.

The most useful evidence of learning is when students are actually genuinely practicing the skill and adapting the current body of knowledge to new questions. So when teachers and administrators create a new school policy that excludes for example the use of cell of phones in schools because students text message in class or perhaps take a picture of an exam question did we actually solve the problem or just create student-resentment and curtail the use of a great learning tool? Cell phones could have tremendous teaching and learning applications in the classroom some which could include the teacher's need to access all learning styles and even address some of the financial limitations of building technological advanced classrooms by utilizing student-owned resources. For example, a student who already owns a cell phone could access the web immediately to conduct research, create video, record a voice memo that can be published on-line, update their daily planner that could alarm them when assignments are due or remind them of an important meeting, or even call an outsider that could convey a story at a click of a button. Like expensive desktop or laptop computers, cell phones are a direct line to our increasingly multimedia world. But how can you turn the cell phone into an learning tool that reflect the direction our society is already going while simultaneously raise awareness of the fears that schools operate under? How do we train students to respect rules and openly as well intellectually challenge those that run counter to a productive, adaptive society? A practical policy can be created that students and teachers can work with but this more democratic approach requires adjustment to the school's approach to creating rules. Should we give students this power?

I seen so many students exhibit rebellious attitudes and ignore students' rights. As young citizens, students’ rights are constantly being curtailed in order to create a more orderly school environment. This is done with the implementation of legislation that ignores various learning styles, school-created policies, and court decisions that chip away at fundamental liberties such as private property and speech. But we must remember Justice Brennan’s warning in which, “(t)he schoolroom is the first opportunity most citizens have to experience the power of government. Through it passes every citizen and public official, from schoolteachers to policeman and prison guards. The values they learn there, they take with them in life.” In his dissenting opinion in the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O, Justice Brennan was emphasizing the role schools have in educating students about government and the nature of authority. Being that students academic and social development is part of the reason schools have been given discretion to utilize administrative power to find practical ways to educate students through rules and program of studies it is imperative that a school's culture reflects the realities of governing in a diverse democratic republic so students can learn how to manage conflict and compromise. Otherwise, schools could reinforce socially unacceptable attitudes and behaviors which then are replicated within and outside the school walls towards authority and its agents.

Introduction to Constitution High School

This blog will focus on the unique government that is emerging at Constitution High School. CHS is a small school dedicated to the study of history, government, and civics. We are in our second year of operation with a freshman and sophomore class totaling about 200 students as of now and will grow to about 400. Located in the center of historic Philadelphia, one of my main goals as a social studies instructor is to access the historic and civic resources in the area to create an attitude that the city is our campus as well as set up a system of government within the school that truly empowers students to utilize civic knowledge, democratic deliberation models, and historical examples to create government leaders. Using the resources of our partners such as the National Constitution Center, Gilder-Lehrman Institue of American Studies, and the law firm of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews, & Ingersoll LLP, we will create a model for student government and course studies that could be replicated around the country.

This ambitious goal of education praxis will combine the theories of experiential and authentic learning with practical experience from teachers, administrators, and students. This blog will be used to further this cause by recording important events and reflections that have occured and the status of current and future programs and plans by those involved.

Participants and readers are encouraged to take an active part in any aspect of this blog.