Posted on 05/02/2003 5:11:08 AM PDT by frossca
BLAIR HORNSTINE is a straight-A student. Make that straight A-plus.
She scored 1570 on her SATs out of a possible 1600.
She'll attend Harvard in the fall.
And until recently, it appeared as if she would be the sole valedictorian of her class at Moorestown High School, Burlington County.
What makes her achievement all the more noteworthy is that Hornstine, 18, is a physically disabled, special-education student.
She suffers from an immune-system disorder similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which made it impossible for her to attend most of her classes at the school.
But now Moorestown's schools superintendent, allegedly taking a cue from some angry parents, is asking the school board to make a last-minute change in school policy that would allow officials to award valedictory honors to more than one student.
Such a change would effectively force Hornstine to share her academic honor with at least one other student, who technically may have a lower grade-point average. A valedictorian is usually the graduating student with the highest average.
So yesterday, with graduation less than two months away and with no official announcement on who will be tops in the Class of 2003, Hornstine did what any other modern teenager would do to address her grievances.
She filed a federal lawsuit.
Carrying the George Orwell book "1984," the petite senior - daughter of Camden County Judge Louis Hornstine - entered the U.S. Courthouse in Camden with high-powered criminal defense lawyer Edwin J. Jacobs.
Jacobs, who represented jailed mobster Joey Merlino at his murder and racketeering trial in 2001, filed suit on Hornstine's behalf against the Moorestown Board of Education, Schools Superintendent Paul J. Kadri and Moorestown Township.
The action alleges that Hornstine is being discriminated against due to her disability, and that the impending action of the school system constitutes a violation of constitutional rights and denial of due process and equal protection under the law. It seeks $2.7 million in damages.
The suit also seeks an injunction against Kadri and Moorestown school board officials from designating a co-valedictorian.
"It is with much sadness that I proceed with litigation against the administration of my school that I have proudly attended and represented for the past nine years," Hornstine said in a statement.
A court hearing on the suit was scheduled for Thursday, four days before Moorestown's Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the proposed rule change.
The case revolves around an issue central to nearly every debate on anti-discrimination laws:
Did the law that protects Hornstine's rights to an education as a disabled person give her an unfair advantage over her able-bodied classmates? Or did it simply provide a level playing field for her to compete fairly with them?
"The sole reason Blair L. Hornstine will be forced to share the honor of valedictorian is that she has disabilities," the lawsuit states.
"Rather than being lauded for her significant academic accomplishments, the co-valedictorian status under these circumstances will serve only to highlight the fact that due to her disabling conditions, defendants do not consider her achievement to be on par with or comparable to that of a non-disabled student."
Lawyers for the school board and Kadri declined comment on the lawsuit yesterday.
Jacobs would not comment after the hearing, nor would Judge Hornstine. Kadri did not return a call seeking comment last night.
But in an opposing brief also filed with the court, lawyers for the Moorestown School District argued that Hornstine's approved Independent Education Program - which involved district instructors' teaching her the same advanced curriculum as other students, but at home - gave her an unfair advantage.
Specifically, Hornstine's ability to structure her own schedule allowed her to take more advanced- placement classes than students who had to attend school at Moorestown High, where some AP courses were taught at conflicting times in the school day.
AP courses are assigned a greater weight than honors or standard courses in the determination of grade-point average, which determines class rank.
"These accommodations were made in light of the Plaintiff's classification, and truly afforded the Plaintiff an advantage in competing for the valedictorian and/or salutatorian awards which her peers simply did not enjoy," said the court papers, filed by attorneys John B. Comegno II and Jennifer L. McCarthy.
"The intent of the Board is not to deprive the Plaintiff of any recognition which is deserved, but rather, to recognize all students who have excelled academically," the attorneys argued.
With college costs skyrocketing, scholarship dollars limited and competition fierce for admissions, the road to the Ivy League has become a bloody battleground for school officials presiding over the best and brightest students - and their parents.
The case of Blair L. Hornstine v. Moorestown Board of Education, et al, is no exception.
According to papers filed on behalf of Kadri and the school board, Kadri said he has been "approached by parents, students and other community members expressing concern that MHS students were not able to compete fairly, or equally," for the awards.
The school board filing questions Blair Hornstine's A-plus achievement in six of the seven AP courses she took at home.
"She was not subject to the same grading standards of the teachers who taught the AP courses at MHS," it says.
Papers filed by Jacobs paint another picture.
They allege that as the controversy over valedictorian became more prominent, Kadri ordered a review of Hornstine's academic program to "validate and verify" her curriculum.
Yet while the instructors taught multiple students, "no other special education students' home instructors were contacted in order to 'validate and verify' their curriculum," the suit says.
Moorestown school officials have not officially declared a valedictorian or salutatorian.
In fact, attorneys for the defendants argued that Hornstine's lawsuit was "premature" and that she would not be harmed or injured by sharing the honor.
"The action is not discriminatory, but rather an effort to remedy a fundamental unfairness that exists," the defense alleges.
To Blair Hornstine, the proposed rule change is unfair and shows no class.
"The issue lies in the rule of law and the need to follow it, especially when the rights of the disabled are concerned," she said. Without this litigation, what will happen to the next successful student who happens to be part of a special-education program?"
What a bunch of jerks school administrators have become!
I agree, the other kids parents should shut the hell up and recognize what this girl did. The fact that the school board is now trying to belittle her achievements is ridiculous. If they really think that her AP A+ grades were unearned, then they should have dealt with that issue beforehand.
Although with a 1570 SAT, I imagine she can go to any college she wants regardless.
Isn't that what salutatorian & honors graduate designations are for?
Until the socialistist attitude that all students must be honored in an equivalent fashion is purged from educators, more and more of this anti-success, share-the-rewards and where high-achievement is frowned upon will fester in schools across the country. It reinforces mediocraty (sp?) and dilutes the potential of our children.
Which I assume accounts for her success...
I see her point, also. However, the matter does not warrant the filing of a federal lawsuit.
I will bet dollars to doughnuts she is a liberal in her political beliefs.
Sounds to me like the other students were discriminated against - where is their equal access? What amazes me is that this student was given a great deal of special treatment in her course offerings, her educational planning, and through the "special education" program, yet was able to take AP courses? I am a bit confused. It sounds as if she was able to do the work, as she did more than the other students, yet she also was allowed to work at her own pace, in her own home, on coursework not available to other students.
As a side note - and not necessarily related directly to this case -
Legally, a special education student cannot fail a course unless they do ZERO work. That's right - if they turn in a paper with nearly random sludge for answers - getting 100% wrong, they still must pass. ANY effort at all is considered passing. We have one special Education student where I teach that will not graduate this year because he has done ZERO work in most of his courses this year and has had a problem with attendance.
The ADA and other regulations pertaining to education have gotten way out of control. I have seen students who receive A's and B's in subjects that they cannot do - B in Algebra, yet cannot add numbers higher than 10+10 ----is this fair to other students? How about the student who gets an A in English - a course that requires reading and writing skills to succeed in, yet the student cannot write a single organized or coherent sentence?
This would be easy to look into -- what grades did she get on the AP exams (which are standardized tests)?
Bwa ha ha ha! These administrators have stepped in it here. Nice that they're big enough to admit the detrimental impact of actually attending their school.
I overlooked this little item the first time I read the article. If I was one of the top students in this class I think I'd have a legitimate gripe about naming her the valedictorian.
Also, I wonder how someone with an immune system disorder who couldn't attend her classes managed to sit through the SAT exam. Or was that administered at home, too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.