California Prop. 82 - Universial Preschool - Rejected

Well, the results are in on Prop. 82
in California. It failed by a 6-4 margin. The measure would have
provided preschool education to California 4-year olds who wanted into
the program. An additional tax for the wealthy would have funded the
program. Rob Reiner spearheaded the project, but the proposal fell on deaf ears when many business groups formed the "No on 82" campaign.



See the Mercury News Story here;  and the S.F. Chronicle story here.



See the UC-Berkeley site on the issue here.

More Action from the Supreme Court: On Race and K-12 Schools

                                                  




Big News: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases
on the use of race on student assignments in Louisville and Seattle.
The central issue is whether race can be used as a factor in assigning
students to particular schools, both as a tie-breaker to determine who
gets their particular choices in school assignments, and as a general
assignment factor in school attempts at desegregation.



Already, there is speculation that this may be the case that ends
affirmative action, as similar cases were not heard when Justice
O'Conner was on the bench. With Alito, the right-leaning group of
justices on the court may have the required number of votes to end
affirmative action generally, not just in K-12 schools. This could be a
major, major case in American history.



Obviously, there is going to be much more information to come...



Check out the SCOTUS blog here for a great entry.

And the AP story here.



The Louisville case: Meredith v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ.

The Seattle case: Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist.

Interesting at the Gadfly

Over at the Education Gadfly
(hosted through the Fordham Foundation) there is an interesting commentary from
Michael Petrilli and Frederick Hess on the future of NCLB. The commentary says
the 'Washington Consensus' that was in place when the law was crafted is still
largely in place. However, there is growing criticism of the law, even from
Republicans (and as mentioned earlier in
this blog, especially from the ranks of governors). The authors conclude
the best hope for NCLB may, ironically, lay with Democrats, particularly
Senator Clinton. Ironic Indeed! It is looking more and more like the balance
over education may lie with the nominees of the parties for the presidential race
in 2008. If it is someone outside the beltway (a governor) significant changes
to NCLB are possible (maybe even likely), if it is someone within the beltway,
well maybe we will see what happens in 2013-14 after all.

Bargaining Healthcare

We all know healthcare is one of the biggest sticking points
in school district/employee negotiations, now we have a study of
school business officials that says healthcare is THE BIGGEST bargaining
issue that leads to stalls in negotiations. Now both sides are spending
additional dollars to train their negotiators to bargain for better health
insurance results according to a School Board News story.



Schools are already frequently reaching impasse on this issue and there is no
sign of a decrease in tensions.  Most union negotiators I have recently
spoke with have made healthcare their top priority, even over pay increases. Of
course, there is a change in the roles of the negotiators on this issue.
Typically, it is the district attempting to hold their ground on issues such as
pay while the union makes extravagant requests, but on healthcare, it is the unions
who are trying to hold their ground against proposals of higher deductibles and
reduced coverage from districts.



This is a hot, hot issue, and it cannot be solved by schools alone. Teachers,
as some of our most valued public employees, deserve healthcare at the expense
of the public, but the shoestring budgets of schools simply do not allow them
to provide adequate healthcare while maintaining all other services. On this
issue, it is time for legislative action and state policy solutions. What those
solutions are needs to be debated, but the district by district approach to
this issue is just going to lead to more impasses, lockouts, and ultimately a
disincentive to join the teaching force. How can we expect math and science
teachers to give up their full healthcare plans at corporations to get stripped
down plans from public schools?

Supreme Court Speaks Loudly on Government Employee Speech

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke loudly on government
employee speech, in particular speech made pursuant to their official
duties as public employees. In the case, Garcetti v. Ceballos,
the court reasoned that a public employee is not a private citizen,l
for the purpose of using the First Amendment protection of free speech,
when speaking under his or her "professional responsibilities." When
speaking under such professional responsibilities, the employee is
still under the control of the employer, and thus, the employer may
regulate what is spoken.



This was a 5-4 decision, and the dissents are worth reading, especially
Souter's which addresses schools directly. This case, probably,
evidences the direct impact of Justice Alito
on the court. This case was reheard (a rare event on the court) after
Justice Alito joined the bench, and with the decision now published, it
is clear the court was split 4-4 and needed his vote as the tiebreaker.




This decision emerged out of the context of a district attorney's
office, but there is little doubt it will apply to schools. Cases such
as Pickering
and other cases based on school driven fact patterns were cited
throughout. What this means for schools is a little unclear, although
speech that could be considered within their professional
responsibilities as employees of school districts will no longer be
protected. How far this extends and what will be considered part of an
employees official duties will need to be worked out in the courts over
the coming years. One this is sure, however, teachers and
administrators need to think twice before making potentially
detrimental comments about their employer, the school. You can make
your own decision about whether this is a healthy development.



Reference NSBA's BoardBuzz for more.

Vilsack Making Education Waves in Iowa

Gov. Tom Vilsack,
rumored by some to be a Democratic candidate in the upcoming
presidential primary, has just passed a major education bill in Iowa.
According to a Des Moines Register story,
the bill will "put more money in public school teachers' wallets and
require high
school students across the state to meet certain requirements to
graduate." Basically, there will be a raise for teachers of $2,700 over
three years, high school students will be required to take a
predetermined number of years of each class in order to graduate (ex.
four years of English), and there is additional dollars devoted to
pre-school education, amongst other provisions.



This is great for teachers in Iowa, probably, but it is more important
as a bellwether for education among Democratic party hopefuls. It is
nice to see it on the agenda of at least some Democrats (the governors
have an easier time with this because they did not have to vote on
NCLB).      



Watch the press conference here, and view the press release here.



                                                                    

Americans Increasingly Teaching for America

Teach for America's
applications are up, way up. The number of applications was up 10% over
last year to around 19,000 recent grads according to an Inside Higher
Education story.



Whether this is good or bad for education can be debated elsewhere, but
you cannot deny the rise in the interest level of recent college
graduates wanting to participate in the education system. More people,
especially academically proficient young people, taking an interest in
serving the next generation of students can only be good.

Stickers and the 11th Circuit

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out
the lower court ruling banning evolution stickers from Cobb County
textbooks. The Court of Appeals questioned whether the judge in the
lower court got the facts right and concluded it did not have enough
information to make the decision. Thus, the case is likely to start
over to reexamine the facts of the case.



                                                   




This is becoming quite the ongoing saga in Georgia, and with the latest
ruling by the court, it is likely that sticker machines across the
country will be gearing up to warn students about the dangerous theory
of evolution.



See the Atlanta Journal-Consitution story here.

California Kids Hostages to Court Decision

The California Supreme Court has reinstated the exit exam,
effective immediately. Because graduation is but mere days away,
students expecting to graduate who have not passed the exit exam will
not be allowed to walk ... at least for now. The case is going back to
the Appellate court to hear arguments about the test's validity and
fairness. Earlier this year, a trial court in Alameda County issued a
preliminary injunction to stop the exam from which the Department of
Education filed an immediate appeal. This decision to reinstate the
exam is the result of the stay of the preliminary injunction by the
Calif. Supreme Court.



Of course, this ruling will be most harsh on students whose primary
language is not English, of which California has a large population.
According to a S.F. Chronicle story,
11% of the class of 2006 (46,768 students) have not passed the exam and
would be ineligible for graduation although all of their other course
requirements are finished. These student's future is being held hostage
by these court decisions. Because so much is riding on whether or not
the exam is required, the court needs to stick with a decision.



The case is Valenzuela v. O'Connell, look for more action upcoming as the Appellate court considers what to do about the test.

Proud of Administrators

Check out this C-Span Q&A interview
with Loni Soderberg. Loni is a vice-principal in San Deigo. The
interview covers various topics from NCLB to school policies to teacher
training and lots of stuff in between.



I must say, this Edjurist was very proud of Loni's performance in the
interview. Not only was she pretty well up to speed on the legal and
policy issues (which of course makes this Edjurist proud) but she was a
wonderful representation of what is going right in the schools. She was
kindness personified, even in light of some very challenging and
probing
questions, and you just knew you kids were safe with her, even though
California and the federal government rate her school as failing.



This would be a great interview to use in an administrator education
class or just as a pick me up when you are feeling down about
education. Kudos Loni. 

NoSpace for MySpace?

Legal
Clips this week linked to a Los
Angles Times story on a new
bill in Congress attempting to block public school access to "social
networking" sites such as MySpace.com.



The act is entitled the 'Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006' and it seeks to
protect children from Internet sites that are considered obscene, harmful to
minors, or contain visual depictions of child pornography as well as social
networking sites and chat rooms.



According to the Times article, there are 80 million registered users of MySpace.
There will be a lot of disappointed kids if this bill goes through. Perhaps
such a regulation of the Internet is a good thing, perhaps not. However, we
have to think a lot more about what we are doing with the regulation of
communication devices. I wonder if the Representatives who proposed this
legislation would be O.K. with the kids using a telegraph machine, or Morse
code, or carrier pigeon - they could be carrying sexually explicit images you
know. Maybe if we limited all forms of communication between children...oh,
wait…

New IDEA Regulations Soon?

Charles Fox at The Special Education Law Blog,
says rumor has it that the special education regulations are on their
way soon. According to the blog, the regs are currently under review at
the Office of Management and Budget and should be out this summer. The field of special education has been waiting for the regulations since passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act in late 2004. A copy of the proposed regulations can be found here.

Segregating Districts by Race??

A lawsuit has been filed against the state of Nebraska by the NAACP. The suit claims that the Omaha Public Schools are being split up into three districts that the NAACP claims are based on race (White, Hispanic, and African American).



This should be interesting because there is really no hiding the fact
that the district boundaries are based on race. In fact, the bill's
sponser (who is African American) has clearly stated so. 
Therefore, this is moving back toward de jure segregation, which is clearly outlawed in the tradition of Brown.



See the AP story here.



Listen to the NPR story on News and Notes here.

                                               


                                             

Immigration Debate Heating Up - How does it affect Education?

As the national debate on Immigration heats up, education is starting to ask immigration questions as well. In a Tuesday article, CNN.com reports on an Urban Institute study that finds immigrants lag behind their peers in school. 



Further, at Education Sector, Kevin Carey asks the education field to stop "crying wolf" about a wave of immigrants in education. He cites another Urban Institute study that finds that nearly 20% of all K-12 students can be classified as immigrants.



All this talk, though, has spurred some questions in this Edjurist over
the legal aspects of immigration and schools. Look for an upcoming
series of postings on immigration and schools and the law. But anyone
with specific thoughts on the subject is encouraged to post comments
and trackbacks.

NON - Highly Qualified Teachers in Every Classroom

Well, we knew this would happen. The states have not gotten
up to speed on the highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirements in time to meet
the federal deadline. But, in an interesting turn of events, the Department of
Education is holding firm to the demands, singling out specific states, and
threatening the withdrawal of federal dollars.



Last Friday, Assistant Secretary of Education Henry Johnson attempted to draw
the line in the sand. In a speech he called out the states, some states in
particular, for their poor efforts at implementation, and required every state
to explain (again) how it will have its teachers highly qualified in the 06-07
school year. The states Johnson singled out as in danger of losing some of
their federal education funding are:



Alaska,
Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.



In addition other states are still under review.



Departing from the Edjurist's normal tone, there really is little excuse for
the states on this one, and one cannot blame the Department of Ed. for getting
frustrated. After President Bush's reelection for a second term, the wait and
see approach (hoping the Congress or the Department would relax the demands) was
unjustified. The states were obviously hoping the Department would close its
eyes to the slow implementation. Well, the department didn't and now the states
are scrambling to comply.



Now, this is not say there is not still a legitimate question as to the nature
of the HQT requirement, especially concerning special education. However, it is
the law and if states want funding they must comply.



Here is the link to the AP
story at CNN.



Here are the
letters to the states from the Department of Ed. concerning their 'good
faith' (or lack thereof) efforts at implementation.



For an explanation of the Highly Qualified Teacher definition, see Azordegan
and Coble (ECS) here.

Fan of John Merrow's

If you are a fan of the Merrow Report or the frequent education
contributions by John Merrow to the News Hour with Jim Leher, check out
the John Merrow Podcast. It can make a great lunch break.

Turmoil at ECS???

The No. 2 person at the Education Commission of the
States recently resigned, as did many other staff members, citing poor
management and financial difficulties. Kathy Christie, the Senior Vice President
of the Information Clearinghouse Division at ECS, said that the current
President Piedad Robertson was not being honest about the organization's
financial troubles, according to an Education Week story posted
today.



Having worked under Kathy Christie, I can testify to her integrity and her love
for ECS. If Kathy is blowing the whistle over these financial issues, you can
be sure there is a significant problem. The Edjurist wishes Ms. Christie all the
best in her future endeavors and is sure she will land solidly on her feet
somewhere, even if that is hiking in the mountains on sunny afternoons.  



The Education Commission of the States is one of the best organizations in
education, period. From the Edjurist perspective, the 50 state StateNotes
compiled by the Information Clearinghouse Division are invaluable in saving
research time. More importantly, however, the Commission is a state
collaboration in a field that was devoted to the States under the Constitution.
Most states have a provision in their education code's subscribing their state
to the "interstate compact" on education. The states are forced to
work together under their own state codes, a monumental success in government.
Further, ECS is a political training ground in education for future leaders of
the United States.
Names of past ECS
commissioners include John Chaffee, Bill Clinton, John Ashcroft, Evan Bayh,
Tommy Thompson, Paul Patton, and Mark Warner. Even current ECS chairman Mike
Huckabee has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate.



Education needs a healthy ECS. Hopefully Christie's actions and the actions of
her fellow ECS employees will get the organization back on track.

Indiana ISTA Lawsuit

The Indiana
State Teachers Association has supposedly (although I have been unable to
find the complaint - if another Edjurist out there finds it please Trackback
with the site) filed a lawsuit against the state of Indiana...

"for failing to fund the
standards and accountability mandates required for Indiana's
public schools. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Indiana's
school funding formula does not provide the resources necessary for all Hoosier
school children to have a fair chance to learn."

(Read the full ISTA News Item here).

(See the ISTA Presentation on the lawsuit here).

No word yet on how this will play out, (but stay tuned to
the Edjurist). This case could get interesting for a few reasons. First, Indiana's funding
formula is not that bad compared to other states. Second, this case may
incorporate issues of NCLB data disaggregation compared to relative funding
levels. Third, the funding for some supplemental services may be at play
here.  This should only get more interesting in the weeks and months
ahead.



Here are some additional links:

Indiana Department of Education Statement

Stories from Indiana newspapers from the Indiana
Law Blog.

NSBA LegalClip.

Update: The Indianapolis Star has now made the complaint available online here.

Documentary on Scopes

Watching
the History Channel tonight, I saw a documentary on the Scopes
trail. It was part of a series called: Ten Days that Unexpectedly Changed
America.

  

Darrow (left) and Bryan in Dayton, TN
during the trial.

Scopes
is often the forgotten education law case, as it has been overshadowed by
Brown. But it is just as integral to American history and the history of
education law. The Monkey Trial, as it was called, pitted two of America’s
greatest lawyers of the time against each other. William Jennings
Bryan, who represented the anti-evolution cause, had run for president
several times. Clarence
Darrow who represented the ACLU, is widely considered one of the greatest
lawyers in American history. It was, like Brown, a battle over the heart
of America
waged in the context of the public schools. Ultimately, Darrow, the ACLU, and
evolution won out, but it was a moment in history that truly changed America.

It
is not too surprising that we are still considering this issue and others under
the Establishment Clause. Certainly the Dover, Penn.
case did not get the publicity of the Scopes trial, but it shows just
how important these public education issues are in American life.

"Tuition shall be without charge" Means something Less Than Free in Indiana

An Indiana school corporation was charging an
extra $20.00 for every enrolled student to help pay for some of the costs
associated with the school. The Indiana Constitution guarantees "tuition
shall be without charge, and equally open to all.” The two met head to head in
the Indiana Supreme Court and the additional $20 charge was declared
unconstitutional.



The case is Nagy
v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp. It is an interesting case to read and
the nature of free tuition in Indiana
is fully examined. I implore any readers who live and deal with Indiana schools to read
it. The history of Indiana's
schools is quite fascinating. The court concluded that "shall be without
charge" means something other than "free." However, the activity
charge did violate the "without charge" provision. The court found:

However, absent specific
statutory authority, fees or charges for what are otherwise public education
cost items cannot be levied directly or indirectly against students or their parents.
Only programs, activities, projects, services or curricula that are outside of
or expand upon those identified by the legislature—what we understand to be
“extracurricular”—may be considered as not a part of a publicly-funded
education. And thus a reasonable fee may be assessed, but only against those
students who participate in or take advantage of them.

It seems then, that charges for anything that is provided
for as part of the public education curriculum, shall be publicly provided. I
would assume this includes fees for textbook charges and science supplies and
drafting equipment and so on. However charges can be assessed for
extracurricular activities.



Look for schools, then, to shift the money after this case from that which is
presently being provided for any extracurriculars to the general education
funds. Then, the schools will charge fees for every extracurricular activity
from football to scholar bowl to yearbook to everything else.



It seems there are still some issues for the legislature to address. If schools
are going to start charging high prices for extracurriculars, then will
everyone still have access to participation? Isn't after school activities just
part of the school experience? It is hard to imagine elementary school without
thinking of the times I spent having fun with friends in after school
activities. The Indiana Court has weighed in, now it is up to the Indiana
Legislature and legislatures around the country to provide for extracurricular
funding as well.