The federal Equal Access Act applies to any “public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance.”  If your school meets that definition, and you permit any “noncurricular student group” to use your facilities, you must permit any and all such groups, regardless of their religious or political beliefs.  While the Equal Access Act was intended to benefit student prayer circles and Bible studies, its primary beneficiary has been the Gay-Straight Alliance and similar groups that support LGBT students.

A district in Florida received an application to allow a Gay-Straight group to meet at the Carver Middle School.  Carver serves grades 6-8. Is that a “public secondary school”?  According to the 11^th Circuit, it is. Therefore, the school must permit the Gay-Straight Alliance group to meet.

The court based this ruling on the state law definition of “secondary education.” That’s because the Equal Access Act defines a “secondary school” as “a public school which provides secondary education as determined by State law.”  Turning to Florida law, the court concluded that a school was “providing secondary education” if it provides courses for which students can obtain high school credit.  Carver MS offers Algebra I.  Kids who take that course in 8^th grade get high school credit.  Bingo—Carver is a “secondary school” and the Equal Access Act applies.

What about Texas?  We suspect the answer would be the same. After all, our Administrative Code’s description of a “secondary curriculum” begins with grades 6-8.

The case is Carver Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Board of Lake County, Florida, decided by the 11^th Circuit on December 6, 2016.

DAWG BONE: CHECK OUT STATE LAW TO SEE IF YOUR MIDDLE SCHOOL IS A “SECONDARY” SCHOOL

 File this one under: EQUAL ACCESS ACT

Tomorrow: Another reminder of the fundamentals.

The Hillsborough County Public Schools in Florida are being battered by advocacy groups with strong opinions about religion.  The Freedom from Religion Foundation accuses the district of violating the Constitution.  Liberty Counsel, on the other hand, accuses the district of infringing on religious freedom.  What’s this about?

It’s about the Equal Access Act and the Fellowship for Christian Athletes. The story hit the news when the district temporarily banned adult leaders of the FCA from meeting with district students.

In a situation like this, the facts get spun to suit the storyline of the advocacy group.  So let’s just back up and review some of the basics of the Equal Access Act. This is the law that guarantees that student-led groups can meet in school facilities during non-instructional time.  The law applies to secondary schools in districts that receive federal funding.  The law requires that if such a school district allows one such group to meet, it must allow all of them to meet, regardless of religion, politics or philosophy.  The original intent of the law was to make sure that Bible clubs, FCA and other religiously oriented meetings would be allowed.  Schools are not to discriminate against these groups, just because they are religious.

However, the Equal Access Act does contain some limitations and rules.  Policy 5730 in Hillsborough County, Florida, accurately reflects those limitations and rules.  They are:

1. The activity has to be initiated by students;

2. Attendance at the meeting must be voluntary;

3. No agent or employee of the district is to promote, lead, or participate in the meeting;

4. The meeting must not materially and substantially interfere with instruction; and

5. Nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend the activity.

The fuss in Florida seems to be about that last point.  Here in Texas, by the way, you will find these same restrictions imposed with slightly different verbiage in Policy FNAB.

We don’t know what is going on in Florida. But it seems there are three possibilities.

*If it turns out that the district regularly turns a blind eye to “non-school persons” who are “regularly attending” student meetings, then the district has failed to enforce its policy.

*If it enforces the policy selectively, applying the rules to some groups but not others, then the disfavored group has a legitimate gripe.

*If it enforces the policy as written with regard to all groups, then it is not infringing on anyone’s religious freedom or discriminating in any way.

It is just following the law and its own policy. That’s what the Dawg recommends.

DAWG BONE: TAKE A LOOK AT FNAB, LEGAL AND LOCAL, AND MAKE SURE YOU ARE ENFORCING IT UNIFORMLY.

File this one under: EQUAL ACCESS ACT

TOMORROW: HOW MUCH KLINGON DO YOU KNOW?