Education Law

It is summer time - and I do apologize for the lack of recent posts.  However, as you know summer means vacation (mostly my children’s - not mine) and my children have plans that do not include my laptop.

Yet, as we enter this first full week of August, that back to school excitement is the air. Sure, here in CT, back to school is still one month away but once Walmart has glue sticks on sale you know the time is getting closer.

So, today, I was reading through the education news headlines and one headline caught my eye.  The story from the Palm Beach Post was titled, “Teachers Close To Age In Students Lose Sight Of Line.”  The story talks about young teachers. It focuses on the early twenty something teachers who are fresh out of college and working their first teaching job in high schools.  It describes how some of these teachers are only a few years older than their students and how they blur the lines between making friends with their students and being their teacher.  Once the line is blurred, a sexual relationship is possible.

I don’t disagree with the article.  It is true that some young (and old) teachers blur the line and this is simply unacceptable.  When there is a specific case of proven teacher misconduct it should be widely reported in order to discourage others from making the same mistakes.

However, I do disagree with the title, the timing and the tone of this article.  In August, as first year teachers get ready for their first teaching jobs we should be focusing on the positive energy and excitement that they bring to the classroom.  The school boards and colleges from which they graduated taught them (or should have taught them!) about their ethical requirements.  If these teachers do something wrong, then we should know about it because any known abuse in our schools should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.  Until then, let’s make sure that the colleges and school boards are doing their job in advising new teachers of their ethical and legal requirements and let’s support our new young teachers and wish them a good start to the school year.

I apologize for the lack of posts this week.  I have quite a few deadlines coming up and quite a few (ok, two) kids home with me this week.  Yet, I did not want Wednesday to go by without our popular weekly spotlight on a politician.

This week let’s take a look at Senator Evan Bayh, a democrat from Indiana whose name is being thrown around as a possible running mate for Barack Obama.

Senator Bayh supports a large increase in financial aid for college - to the tune of about $20 billion dollars.  This is part of a comprehensive plan to increase affordable financial aid options and to decrease middle class taxes in order for students and their families to be able to afford college.

A critical part of Senator Bayh’s education plan is his commitment to fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and to ending unfunded mandates.

Senator Bayh has a very high approval rating with both the American Federation of Teacher and the National Education Association.

You can read more about his education views here.

So, what do you think?  Do you like his views? Would his education platform be a good addition to the Obama ticket? 

This week’s politician in the spotlight will be Florida Governor Charlie Crist.  Governor Crist is a Republican and rumored to be on John McCain’s list of vice presidential candidates. 

Governor Crist served as Florida’s Education Commissioner from 2000 - 2003.

In Governor Crist’s 2007 State of the State speech, he pledged 3.8 billion dollars to reduce class sizes.  That was a 19% increase in funding.

In addition to smaller classes, Governor Crist supports parental choice in education.  He supports charter schools and school vouchers.  He thinks that parents know which school will best meet the needs of their child.

He also believes in compensating excellent teachers.  He believes that teachers who perform well should earn more money.

On a side note - Governor Crist became engaged to be married this week - so congratulations to Governor Crist and his fiancee.

Last month, a California appeals court agreed to reconsider its previous ruling that required home school instructors to have teaching credentials.  Parents, religious groups, home schooling organizations and Governor Schwarzenegger support the court’s decision to reconsider the ruling.  The state’s largest public school teacher’s union does not.

There are over 160,000 children in California who are homeschooled.  The ruling is expected from the court by the end of September.

Private schools in California are not required to have their teachers credentialed.  Should parents who chose to homeschool their children be held to a different standard?  Are there sufficient ways to make sure that kids who are homeschooled in California get a good quality education without making their parents (or other instructors) become licensed teachers? 

I would argue that if private schools can do it, so can home schools.  Parents who, for whatever reason, decide to home school their children should be required to provide them with an appropriate education.  The state should be responsible for monitoring the progress of homeschool students and for making sure that there is not educational neglect - just as it should for all students, no matter where they attend school.  However, it does not seem fair to require parents to have formal teaching credentials in order to home school.  What do you think?

In the past few weeks, we’ve looked at Democrats and Republicans.  This week we’ll look at Joe Lieberman from Connecticut.  Once a Democrat and now an Independent, Senator Lieberman is a talked about choice for a Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

In 2007, Senator Lieberman introduced a bipartisan education bill with Senators Reid and McConnell that was designed to keep America competitive in the global marketplace.  It passed by a large majority and was signed into law by President Bush.  It was part of Senator Lieberman’s longstanding commitment to science and technology education.

Senator Lieberman was a strong supporter of No Child Left Behind in 2001.  Last year, he introduced the All Students Can Achieve Act of 2007 along with Senators Landrieu and Coleman.

He is a strong supporter of instructional technology, higher education and, charter schools.

For more information about Senator Lieberman’s education please visit his website.

As of tomorrow, public school students in Connecticut can no longer receive out of school suspensions unless they pose a danger to persons or property or they are so disruptive of the educational process that the suspension must be served outside of school.  They may receive in school suspension for up to 10 days for violating school rules.

When signing the bill into law, Governor Rell made clear that the intent is to make sure that students are only removed from school in the most exceptional circumstances.

Under the previous law students could be suspended for breaking a publicized rule of the school board and, in fact, about 77,000 Connecticut students received out of school suspensions in 2005-2006.

Additional information about the bill can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Is this new law a good one?  Will it bring down the number of suspensions and keep kids in school?

Do you remember your grade school report card?  How did you rate on “listens to and follows directions” “respects property” “complies with rules” or “accepts responsibility”? 

According to a report provided to the Fairfax County School Boardin Fairfax County, Virginia, how kids rate in these types of subjective “sound moral character and ethical judgment” areas may, in part, have something to do with their race and abilities.  The report found that Black, Hispanic and students with disabilities in the early grades tended to have lower scores than White non-disabled students.

As the country seeks to prepare a 21st century workforce and emphasis is placed on character education in general and social and emotional skills in particular, school officials need to take care that these skills are measured in as objective a way as possible.   

School districts need to “accept responsibility” and make sure that the standards of measuring moral character and ethical judgment are fair and that they are fairly enforced.  They also need to be careful about labels and make sure that no group of students is unfairly labeled by a subjective report.

It seems that much is happening in the world of education law this week.  I’ve had trouble deciding what to post about first because it all seems so terribly important and relevant.  Rest assured, my friends, that I will cover many of the topics in the coming weeks.  But, in order, to at least point out some of the more interesting and important (and in some cases disturbing) recent developments, I am going to point you in the direction of some really well written education law blogs.

First, we have Charles Fox talking about a Virginia school district report in which special education students and non white minority students have lower character ratings according to their teachers.

Next, take a look at Justin Bathon’s post on the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in three education cases.

Finally, consider Mark Walsh’s post about the homeschooling case being reheard by a California Appeals Court.  He has lots of links to news articles and briefs in this closely watched case.

You’ve probably heard the news by now.  17 female students who attend Gloucester High School in Gloucester, Massachusetts became pregnant this year.  The principal says it was part of pact - the girls would all get pregnant and help each other with the babies.  The mayor says there was no pact.

The issue of whether there was or was not a pact is a separate issue, in my opinion, that should make us talk about peer pressure, influence and teen mentality.  Yet, regardless of whether there was a pact 17 girls are pregnant and school officials are seemingly under fire. 

So, here’s my question.  How much responsibility do school officials bear for these pregnancies?  They certainly have the responsibility to educate the pregnant students and new moms but is it a failure of the school system that led these girls to get pregnant?  Should the school have any legal or moral responsibility for this?

According to Time Magazine, the school nurse began advocating prescription birth control for Gloucester high school girls without parental consent.  She resigned in protest.  Did she have the right idea or was she overstepping her role?

In my opinion, the Gloucester situation raises a lot of questions that education officials must answer.  What are your thoughts? How should Gloucester, and other cities and towns, answer these questions?

The Governor of Massachusetts has unveiled part of his education plan today. This part includes universal Prekindergarten for students in the Commonwealth, full day Kindergarten across the Commonwealth and a drop out prevention program.

The biggest concern surrounding Governor Patrick’s plan is how it will be funded.  The Governor announced the formation of a special commission to help with the funding issues but will it be enough?  Will school districts be able to implement the new mandates?

Governor Patrick has been quoted as saying that budget concerns should not be a factor when discussing how to best prepare children for success.  Is this realistic?

In my opinion, the Governor has a lot of good ideas that would improve education for Massachusetts’ students.  However, I am concerned about any plan that delays the discussion of the money necessary to implement the plan.  Plans are only effective if they are implemented and that takes money.

What are your thoughts?