COMPTON - As temperatures in Southern California plunged earlier this month, a lack of heat and broken windows forced students and teachers at Compton High School to bundle up. Some teachers held classes outside to escape the chill. Many at the school say the problems have been going on for years.

Today a mother of two Compton High School students filed an official complaint about the cold conditions in her son's classroom. Under the terms of the 2004 settlement of Williams vs. California, school officials must address complaints from parents, students, and teachers about facilities conditions that threaten the health or safety of students or staff.

The case was filed in 2000 by the ACLU of Southern California, the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Public Advocates, Inc. and other groups on behalf of students who attended substandard California schools.

"I speak for my child and for other parents when I say our children deserve decent schools," said Compton High School parent Lourdes Rocha, whose son, Frank, is in 10th grade. She also has a daughter in 9th grade at the school. "If the average person walked into a Compton classroom, he would be shocked by the building conditions."

The Williams vs. California settlement gives Compton Unified School District officials 30 working days to respond to Rocha's complaint. As one of Compton's 33 low-performing schools, the high school is eligible for emergency repair funding under the settlement.

"How do low-performing schools attract good teachers and convince students to come to school when they can't keep them warm?" asked ACLU/SC Racial Justice Organizer Teresa VirgenTorres. "Students' learning suffers when the building is falling apart around them."

Compton Unified School District has failed to submit any of the 33 school-facilities assessments required under the settlement and due in January 2006, despite receiving $335,410 two years ago for that purpose. County and State officials have repeatedly called the district to task for failing to complete the assessments.

More than 2,000 completed assessments from 375 other districts are posted online, providing comprehensive lists of necessary repairs and other information to help school districts address facilities issues before breakdowns occur and students are left shivering in their classrooms.

Other school districts have used the assessments to guide their spending on school repairs and to apply for funds from the $800-million Emergency Repair Program. Compton accounts for 83% of uncompleted assessments statewide.

"A completed facilities needs assessment would likely have identified any necessary heating system repairs, and unused needs assessment grant funds could then have helped pay for them," explained ACLU/SC attorney Brooks Allen, who oversees the implementation of the Williams settlement.

Website: Statewide needs assessments are available online at http://www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnareporting/fnareporting.asp

The Bush administration has dropped its claim of ultimate authority to listen in on Americans' telephone and internet communications without first seeking a warrant, switching its strategy one day before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is to testify before Congress. It now says a secret surveillance court will judge the plan's legality.

Last year, the ACLU successfully challenged the National Security Agency's five-year-old warrantless wiretapping program.

The ACLU questioned the administration's motives and its timing, which also came two weeks before a Jan. 31 court date. "The NSA program was operating illegally, and this is an attempt to avoid public oversight by negotiating secret rules with a secret court," said ACLU/SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston.

The ACLU sued on behalf of journalists, academics and advocacy groups, and last year a federal judge dismissed the Bush administration's claim that it, not the courts and Congress, could write the wiretapping rules. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she wrote. The ACLU will continue to press its lawsuit.

By acknowledging that a special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can decide the program's legality, the Bush administration apparently still hopes to hide the program from Americans and members of Congress.

"Without a court order that prohibits warrantless wiretapping, Americans can't be sure that their private calls and e-mails are safe from unchecked government intrusion," said Ann Beeson, lead counsel in ACLU v. NSA.

The Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a court-issued warrant "describing the place to be searched." This principle also applies to telephone and internet communication.

/>" style="float: left; margin: 10px 20px 20px 0px;" width="150" />

The Bush administration has dropped its claim of ultimate authority to listen in on Americans' telephone and internet communications without first seeking a warrant, switching its strategy one day before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is to testify before Congress. It now says a secret surveillance court will judge the plan's legality.

Last year, the ACLU successfully challenged the National Security Agency's five-year-old warrantless wiretapping program.

The ACLU questioned the administration's motives and its timing, which also came two weeks before a Jan. 31 court date. "The NSA program was operating illegally, and this is an attempt to avoid public oversight by negotiating secret rules with a secret court," said ACLU/SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston.

The ACLU sued on behalf of journalists, academics and advocacy groups, and last year a federal judge dismissed the Bush administration's claim that it, not the courts and Congress, could write the wiretapping rules. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she wrote. The ACLU will continue to press its lawsuit.

By acknowledging that a special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can decide the program's legality, the Bush administration apparently still hopes to hide the program from Americans and members of Congress.

"Without a court order that prohibits warrantless wiretapping, Americans can't be sure that their private calls and e-mails are safe from unchecked government intrusion," said Ann Beeson, lead counsel in ACLU v. NSA.

The Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a court-issued warrant "describing the place to be searched." This principle also applies to telephone and internet communication.