Legal Forum (continued) president asked the parent to stop speaking and warned that if he continued, he would be escorted out by security. The parent continued his speech as a security officer escorted him calmly from the room, finishing the speech in just under three minutes. The board president later testified that the parent had been unruly, not following rules, and was hostile in his demeanor. The board president also said that he had let the parent speak until other people started to object and got offended.
The previous system, INOW, has gone out of business and is no longer an option. So, in our attempt to replace that with a system that not only meets, but exceeds the needs of our school leaders, we sought the input and expertise of technology directors, educators, and stakeholders from across the state, and formed a committee to look at various options for Alabama’s student management system; overwhelmingly (by more than 90 percent of committee members) PowerSchool was the system of choice. Over the coming months we will roll out more training options and continue looking at the most efficient and effective ways to support PowerSchool implementation at the local level. We want to answer your questions, answer them quickly, and provide necessary training and resources to make sure we can take full advantage of the potential of this truly amazing system. We have a really strong product that is going to do wonders for our state in the years to come. The power behind PowerSchool is much richer than anything we have ever used before. There is great potential in the PowerSchool platform, and it is going to allow Alabama to connect students, teachers, administrators, and parents with the shared goal of improving student learning outcomes. Again, thank you for your dedication and your perseverance through what we know are very difficult times. There will be bumps in the road – we know that even with the best training, the implementation of such a data-driven and comprehensive system will take time and patience to master. The ALSDE plans to be here every step of the way and will do whatever we can to make sure every system in Alabama can utilize this flexible, scalable, and reliable student information system.
The parent sued the school board for violating his speech rights, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, allows a plaintiff to seek damages for violation of a constitutional or civil right. The parent alleged that the policy used vague and undefined terms, and that the policy imposed content-based restrictions on speech. After both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, the district court awarded summary judgment to the school board. The parent appealed. The appeal deployed three arguments. First, the parent argued that the policy’s restrictions on “personally directed,” “abusive,” and “antagonistic” speech violate free speech. Second, the parent argued that the preregistration requirement is an improper restraint on speech. And third, the parent argued that the policy itself is unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court decision began by acknowledging that the constitutionality of speech restrictions depends upon the nature of the forum in which it occurs. Then, the decision recorded that the parties agreed that school board meetings are limited public forums. (Note: The court cited Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 470 (2009), which is about monuments on display in a public park, for this assertion. As a tactical matter, we suggest that the community comments part of a school board meeting is a limited public forum, without conceding that the whole school board meeting is a limited public forum.) In a limited public forum, a school board may make manner, place,
Continued on Page 26 21
