AERA Wrap

Well, another edition of AERA is in the books - rather,
online at ERIC. Here are a few comments and notes:

                                      
 

1. The Moscone Center was a great venue for the event. It housed a vast
majority of the sessions and meetings. Surrounding hotels did have to pick up
some of the slack, but when they did, their facilities were excellent as well.
If you are in San Francisco
anytime soon be sure to check out the 2nd floor lobby of the Marriott. It was
stunning.



2. As the law is concerned, there were not too many sessions, and I hope for
more next year. There were good presentations on Title IX, the Fourth
Amendment, Affirmative Action, and especially on religion. There were at least
3 presentations on religion that are worth checking out from the law SIG
sessions. All the presenters seemed to conclude this years shakeup in the
Supreme Court will lead to significant changes in the tests being applied to
issues under the Establishment Clause.



3. The Law and Education SIG
business meeting was especially informative. Not only were there great
presentations (although this Edjurist wishes Gary Orfield would have spoke more
as his wisdom and penchant toward action was clearly visible), but the content
of the business meeting itself was interesting. First, there are significant
numbers in the SIG, 135 paid members. Further, because of the new AERA system
for dolling out sessions, a high number of law proposals will lead to a higher
number of sessions. So Edjurists of the world need to get their proposals in on
time and think about multiple proposals.



4. For the current graduate and law students out there, there will be an annual
award, the Emerging Scholar
Award, for the best student proposal. This year it went to Joseph Oluwole,
a student a Penn State. Congrats. For all others, get the
submissions in next year. You can only win if you are accepted and write the
paper.



5. Next year, I would love to see the Edjurist population challenged more. I
missed the Christopher Edley presentation (if any readers saw it please
trackback with some comments), but the law SIG presentations, while very
informative, did not challenge the Edjurist population to examine any problems
and propose legal solutions. Having attended ELA and UCEA this is something
we generally need to do more of across all these presentation opportunities.



Well, that is it for now. Comments are welcome.

Blogging from AERA

AERA is in San Francisco
this year at the Moscone
Center. The amount of
legal related presentations is shockingly low. This, Sunday, morning offered a
professional development seminar on the use of legal research. The session was
devoted to introducing non-legal researchers to the use of legal techniques to
add a dimension to their otherwise existing research. This was an admirable
idea and after looking at the materials, I am sure the session went well.



It made this Edjurist wonder, however, why we do not have sessions on how to
meld legal and traditional academic research for lawyers and traditionally
legal oriented scholars. There is only one book I know of on the subject, Dave
Schimmel's Research that Makes a Difference: Complementary Methods for
Examining Legal Issues in Education.



Assumedly, there is traditionally legal orientated researchers engaging in
academic (quantitative, qualitative, historical,...) research. However, this
is, as of yet, not compiled and analyzed. For new researchers entering the
field, this is an inexcusable oversight. This Edjurst is advocating, rather
begging, for a presentation at the Education Law Association, AERA, or the
University Council for Educational Administration on such a topic.

New Education Policy Blog

There is another ed policy blog, this time out of Education
Sector. It is called the Quick and the Ed.
Sort of cute, sort of silly. It has a whole Clint Eastwood feel to it -
like they are going to shoot the next policy down quicker than a
rattlesnake can blink an eye.



                                                                                                    

The
content is good though and should keep pretty abreast of the D.C. ed policy
scene as all of the policy analysts out of the Education Sector offices are
working on it, and the Education Sector offices sit on Pennsylvania Avenue directly between the
White House and the Capitol. Just another sign the Edupolicy world is changing.

Reading, Arithmetic, and ... Well ... Nothing

There is quite a buzz in the edublogisphere over a Sunday NY
Times front page article on NCLB reading and math demands. The story
says that instruction in math and science are doubling or even tripling, while
instruction in all other subjects is being cut. The data is based on a study from the Center on Education Policy, Jack Jennings
policy center in Washington
D.C. Here is the blurb from Rotherham's blog.




While the data is compelling, it represents another severe misstep by the
writers of NCLB when it comes to policy implementation. What good is reading
and math without a context within which to use them? This reminds me of a story
that everyone has about the "geek" in high school who knew all there
was to know about equations and diagramming sentences (does that show my age?)
but didn't have any friends. Why was that? Could it be that pure knowledge
without context is a pretty useless thing? So it seems with NCLB's policy on
reading and math. I am sure the point of the policy was to increase overall
knowledge in all subjects, but when you test in only two, well it doesn't take
a lot of foresight to know what is going to happen.

Education Law and Policy Forum

A new education law entity has emerged at the University of Georgia's
Institute of Higher Education. The Education Law Consortium has
been around for a little while now, however, it is now moving in a promising
new direction with the publication of the Education Law and
Policy Forum. The Forum combines papers submitted throughout the year and
conference presentation submissions for their annual National Student
Conference.
                                          

The national conference for students is proposing to cover the lodging and
meals for the presenters for the weekend of the presentation. Quite a good deal
for graduate students and I encourage all Edjurist faculty out there to make
their students aware of the opportunity.



I have investigated the publications and I am quite impressed for an electronic
journal. Most of the submissions seem to come from law students and many of
those happen to attend the University
of Georgia. However, over
time, with Edjurist cooperation, the conference could be something even better.
Further, I applaud the Consortium for the effort to publish the papers online
for free. It could be a great resource, if properly publicized.



The only drawback I foresee is the electronic and student nature of the Forum.
Such a nature precludes consideration for tenure and would not weigh as heavily
with future employers as a traditional policy or law publication. This Edjurist
encourages the Forum to open paper submissions to present practitioners and
faculty to increase the stature of the publication and to annually publish all
the submissions in a hard copy so libraries and data centers such as ERIC can
get aboard.



All in all, a great idea and it has the full backing of the Edjurist.

Detroit Sick-out

Teachers in Detroit exercised their power over school districts last
week when over 500 teachers mysteriously became ill and did not come
into work. The freak illnesses caused the closure of over 50 schools.
Seems teacher pay, what else, is at issue



Here are a couple of Detroit Free-Press articles on the issue here and here. Here is the Education Wonk's blurb.

Law Profs Blogging

Sorry for the absence. The Edjurists were occupied over spring break
with various activities and it took a while to get back to the keyboard.



Anyway, here is an interesting site of law professor blogs. There is no education law blog yet, although we hope one will arrive soon.  Check out the tech law professor blog. It is especially well done.

Supreme Court Rules on Military Recruiting

The Supreme Court has ruled on an issue affecting universities. The case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Constitutional Rights, emerged out of the law school context, but has education wide implications.



In short, law schools banded together to attempt to limit
discrimination on several basis, including discrimination based on
sexual orientation. The policies prohibited any organization that
discriminated from recruiting on campus. The military openly
discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, some law
schools (and a coalition of law school professors) prohibited the
military from recruiting JAG lawyers on their campuses. The military
sued and won in the Supreme Court. Thus, law schools cannot prohibit
the military from recruiting.



The impact of this case is somewhat limited in that it deals with
military recruiters. Thus, this case cannot be directly employed for
other Equal Access Act cases because there was a specific statute in
this case solely for military recruiters:



The Solomon Amendment denies federal funding to an institution of
higher education that “has a policy or practice . . . that either
prohibits, or in effect prevents” the military “from gaining access to
campuses, or access to students . . . on campuses, for purposes of
military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and
scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any
other employer.” 10 U. S. C. A. §983(b) (Rumsfeld).



Because this statute was on the books, the statute overrode the law
school policy of general non-discrimination. Further, because the
statute is only tied to federal funds, schools are free to opt out of
it by denying themselves the federal funds. This provision passed by
Congress also did not violate any of the law schools free speech or
expression rights because there is no government requirement that the
law school "say" or "express" anything, only that they open their doors
to military recruiters.



Probably, this will have more of an impact on universities, but the
case is instructive. Schools can have anti-discrimination use policies,
but when those policies conflict with Congressional mandates, the
statutes take precedence. Thus, assumedly, Congress could write
statutes that mandate access for other types of recruiters and users
which would not infringe upon the school's free speech or expression
rights.



Listen to the Nina Totenberg NPR report or the Gwen Ifill report on PBS (especially good). Or read the CNN story, the NY Times story, or the Washington Post story.

Congressional Ratings

The National Journal has come out with this year's Congressional Ratings.
For those of you not familiar, the ratings rank representatives and
senators according to their votes as either liberal or conservative.
The most liberal Senator: Edward Kennedy. Most Conservative: Jeff
Sessions. Check your Senators and Representatives.

ChannelOne Study

The Washington Post is reporting on a new study that investigated what students remember after watching ChannelOne,
the controversial provider of news, advertising, and free T.V.s to
schools. In short, the study finds that students do not remember much
at all from ChannelOne broadcasts; however, students do remember more
of the advertising than they remember of the news. Interesting, but
predictable.

Rotherham on Teacher Speech

In his blog Eduwonk, Andy Rotherham posted a blog today
on being critical of the President. There is some good information in
the entry, but more importantly, it is a great example of the
intersection of law and policy in the daily life of an education
leader.

Voucher Issues

There are a couple of voucher issues worthy of updating.



First, the plan to expand Milwaukee's
voucher program to more students is moving along in the Wisconsin Legislature.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has really been on top of the issue, and is
worth checking out. The  Edjurists out there will remember that Milwaukee has generated
quite a bit of litigation concerning their voucher program. Here are some of the cases: Jackson v. Benson, Miller v. Benson (878 F.Supp. 1209 (E.D. Wis. 1995)), and Davis v. Grover (166 Wis. 2d 501 (1992)).



Also, Indiana
is taking steps to fund a full day kindergarten program through tax credits.
Details of the program are still a little fuzzy, and there is still debate on
the issue, but it looks as though schools (either public or private) could be
reimbursed. Check out this video from the Jan. 29, Indiana Lawmakers interview. Here is a link to the bill.

Finally, vouchers have managed to survive the cuts in the latest round
of the budget. While many program were zeroed, vouchers recieved an
additional $100 million. In the plan, parents could recieve up to
$4000.00 that could be transferred to private schools. Here
is a decent EdWeek article on it (registration required - which is
annoying). And here is a quote from the Department of Education page on the virtues of the budget.

More Options for Parents.
While states have made improvements to implement NCLB choice options,
there are still too few alternatives in many districts for parents
seeking a quality education for their children. The 2007 would increase
this range with:

• $100 million for a new America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids
  program, which would provide parents of students enrolled in schools
  identified as in need of restructuring with more opportunities to
  transfer their children to a private school or obtain supplemental
  services.

And who says business doesn't influence education???

Here is an interesting NY Times article. Seems for-profit online colleges have influenced their way into the U.S. DOE financial aid system.

Utah Evolution Bill Dies

The latest attempt to question evolution in Utah has failed. SB96
would have established a state policy that teachers should instruct
science students that not all scientists agree on the origins of life
or the origins of human life. Further, the bill would have mandated the
state not endorse a particular theory in the classrooms.



The debate got a little brutish on Tuesday, "There are
a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an
ape," [Sen. Chris] Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."



Here are a few articles on the topic: Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, N.Y. Times, and CNN.

Arlington v. Murphy

Just an update on the action in the latest ed. law case on
the Supreme Court
Docket, Arlington
v. Murphy. Several entities have filed amicus briefs at this point,
including NSBA and
the Department
of Justice.



This case concerns the awarding of expert witness fees as a subset of
attorney's fees* that are awarded under the IDEA, 20
U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)(B). The case generated nearly $30,000 for a single
consultant (Marilyn Arons, pictured), which the prevailing parents requested
the district to cover. The trial court, after some discussion of time keeping
requirements, awarded $8,650. This was affirmed by the Appellate Court.


            
             
                   
                   
                  
             



Just a short comment in preparation for the decision: This Edjurist, at least,
felt the case was rightly decided by the Appellate Court, but fears the Supreme
Court (with its infinite wisdom in special education) will again strike down a
fee shift between the school and the parents. The law is certainly unclear on
this issue and other civil rights laws do not allow for such an award. However,
as the 2nd Circuit indicated in its decision, IDEA is and should continue to
be, different from other civil rights statutes. IDEA itself indicates parents
have, "the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and by
individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of
children with disabilities." Finally, policy demands this fee shift. Not
only has the Supreme Court managed to take away most of the decent lawyers in
special education (see Buckhannon below) now they have the chance to
take away most of the decent lay advocates. If they do rule against expert
fees, special education parents will be left even more in the dark when schools
trample on their rights and, ultimately, special education students will be
poorly served.



On a different note, to all you fans of statutory interpretation (myself
included) this will be an excellent case to watch. There is a huge reliance on
legislative history and an earlier case, Casey, found Justice
Scalia relying on legislative history in dicta saying Congress did intend for
IDEA to be different. Probably, the court will pull some "plain
language" malarkey to get rid of the legislative history, but if nothing
else, it will be especially interesting to see how the two new justices deal
with the issue.



*While this is the first case dealing with expert witness costs, it is not the
first case to deal with attorney's fees under the IDEA. See, Buckhannon (audio
here),
T.D. v.
LaGrange, Doe
v. Boston Pub. Sch., and others.

Musical Chairs? 20 kids, 10 chairs.

It seems almost 1/2 the states are intersted in the Department of Ed's
olive branch to allow flexibility in their accountability standards
demanded under NCLB.  The N.Y. Times ran the story on Wednesday.

The states that have applied to make the changes for the current
school year are Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee and Utah.

Six more — Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and South Dakota — have asked to apply changes next year.

Perhaps 10 flexibility slots may not be enough as the
pressure on the federal Department of Ed. increases to step back from
their hard line accountability positions. Look for more concessions to
the states in the near future.

Education Spending on the Rise?...But the President's Budget Says...

There may be some good news for education spending. Stateline.org is running a story
today about possible state increases in education spending. It is worth
your time to read and see if your state is listed as on the up draft in
spending. Mike Griffith at ECS (who the Edjurist is forever in debt to
for allowing me to use his office while he was away studying in Europe)
said, “It's looking like it’s going to be an even
better year all around for almost every state, with the exception being
the Gulf Coast and Michigan, which at best will have a flat year in
education funding.” There even seems to be a hint of college tuition reductions. (Like I said, worth your time to read).



Nice to see the states have not abandoned education, as Washington
seems to have done. NCLB has so altered the education landscape that
perhaps, education will fall back into the hands of the rightful
owners.

Indiana Attempts to Prevent Dropouts

The Indianapolis Star is reporting on a bill moving out of the statehouse to the governor's desk for approval. The bill (H.B. 1347) would put more requirements on schools to track and prevent dropouts, including reporting:



        (19) The number of students who have dropped out of school,
including the reasons for dropping out.

        (20) The number of student work permits revoked.

        (21) The number of student driver's licenses revoked.

        (22) The number of students who have not advanced to grade
10 due to a lack of completed credits.

        (23) The number of students suspended for any reason.

        (24) The number of students receiving an international
baccalaureate diploma.



Also, students would not be allowed to dropout between 16 and 18 if:



       (3) the withdrawal is due to:

            (A) financial hardship and the individual must be
employed to support the individual's family or a dependent;

            (B) illness; or

            (C) an order by a court that has jurisdiction over the
student.

     (c) A written acknowledgment of withdrawal under subsection
(b) must include a statement that the student and the student's
parent understand that withdrawing from school is likely to:

        (1) reduce the student's future earnings; and

        (2) increase the student's likelihood of being unemployed in
the future.



Not sure what all this would mean yet from the law standpoint.
Obviously, schools are going to have to tighten up their dropout
prevention and tracking and make sure they follow the letter of the law
in the dropout interviews. Just in the back of the Edjurist's mind,
there seems to be a concern about these dropout interviews coming back
to haunt the school. If the school messes up any of these procedural
issues in the dropout interview, could a student sue the school? Could
damages be future earnings? Probably, everything would be covered in
negligence immunity, but still...a little concerning.



 Also contained in the bill is some interesting ideas on high
school graduation credits while at college, including specific
provisions for Ivy Tech. Finally, there seems to be a requirement that
schools add at least two AP and Dual Credit courses to students who
qualify. This would be rough on rural school corporations. As always,
stay tuned. 

Laptops for All?

Interesting idea emerging out of the Illinois Lt. Governor's office.
Pat Quinn is proposing a $50 million dollar proposal that would put a
laptop in the hands of every 7th grade student in the state. Here are
several articles on the subject: The Southern Illinoisan, Education Week (free registeration required),  The St.L. Post-Dispatch, and a couple of posts from Alexander Russo's blogs.



The Edjurist knows there have been mixed results in Maine, where such a
program has already been instituted, but the idea is fantastic. What
better way (besides paying teachers more) is there to show students the
State cares about them than to give them gifts (thousand dollar gifts
that is). Plus, there is the added benefit of a totally computer
literate population (to attract those all too coveted "hi-tech jobs").
Finally, it would put schools on the forefront for once. Sure there
will be problems, but there are always problems when you lead a new
movement. Certainly, the Edjurist is fretting all the legal
implications of student access to the Internet during class. But, the
lesson here is that we can be proactive instead of reactive, doesn't
that sound nice for a change?



The problem, though, is the funding. The current proposal to close
Illinois loopholes is admirable, but shouldn't the big computer
companies being paying for this? 



Here is a little lesson learned in law school (somewhere between torts
and civil procedure). West and Lexis (the two biggest legal research
providers) offer unlimited access to their services for all law
students. The plan is simple, get them hooked and then reap the rewards
when they graduate. While I know there is an underlying sinister
capitalist agenda, the fact is there is no other way to pay for it
other than big tuition increases.



States need to push for similar plans as laptops enter the K-12
mainstream. Undoubtedly, there will need to be tax increases otherwise
and that could slow the technological integration for decades. Teaming
with businesses on this one is a win-win.

A Commission to Study NCLB

The USA Today ran a story
on Monday about a new bi-partisan, independent commission that is being
formed to study NCLB. There is little detail at this point, but it
looks like at least some of the funding is coming from the Aspen Institute and Roy Barnes of Georgia and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin will chair it. Stay tuned.