Edjurist on the road

Justin and I visited the University of South Carolina today.  We were in Columbia for a friend's (Assistant Professor Jesulon Gibbs Brown) wedding.  We toured the campus.  The highlights were the Colleges of Education and Law.  I think that is because we both teach education law.  One highlight is that we found an Institute for Education Law in USC's Law School.  Of course no one was actually there since it's break, but we think that is where the Journal of Law and Education is located.

Do the CMU Faculty Have a New Contract Yet?

The answer to the question is maybe.  After 14 hours of negotiations under the supervision of Isabella Circuit Court Judge Paul H. Chamberlain, the CMU Faculty Association (FA) and CMU Administration issued a joint statement saying that a tentative agreement (TA) has been reached. The contents of the TA haven't been released and the faculty won't get to see them until a meeting that is scheduled a week from Monday.  The vote on the deal in January.  

The faculty participated in a job action on August 22nd after our contract expired on June 30, 2011.  Because of a new Michigan law, CMU refused to pay any wage increases to faculty members and shifted the cost of health care premiums to faculty members once the contract expired.  Negotiations have been ongoing since last spring, and a fact finder was called in to assist with the process.  His report was issued last month.  CMU offered to accept their interpretation of the fact finder's recommendations.  The FA didn't agree with the administration's position and rejected the offer but countered with terms for a one year contract.  This was rejected by CMU.  

The injunction against the FA engaging in job actions expired on Wednesday and a hearing with Judge Chamberlain was scheduled yesterday on both the extension of the injunction and the legality of the law preventing wage increases and shifting health care benefit cost increases to public employees when their collective bargaining agreements expire.  These rulings were not made since a TA was reached.

Following this situation has been my introduction to the collective bargaining process.  I'm going to reserve judgment on whether I think this process is beneficial until I see the final offer compared to the initial offers and the overall impact on the university's culture.  My experience thus far is that CMU has been a wonderful place to work with great students, dedicated faculty members and an adminstration that has many faculty friendly policies in place.  It's been tense on campus this fall with faculty members so unhappy about not having contracts and the terms that were being offered.  I think it's helped with unity among faculty members but definitely hurt faculty/administrator relationships.  We'll see how far this potential agreement goes to repair relationships.  

Here's a link to Michigan's PA 54: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/publicact/pdf/2011-PA-0054.pdf

Restraining order extended at CMU

I woke up very early this morning and traveled to Mt. Pleasant to attend the hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order against the CMU Faculty Association.  Judge Paul H. Chamberlain asked the parties into his chamber where they agreed to extend the restraining order against any collective work stoppage until 20 days after the Michigan Employment Relations Commission fact finding report is issued.  Fact finding is scheduled for the second week in September and the report is expected 30 days after it concludes.  The administration was ordered to bargain in good faith. Both sides considered this order a win.

To see a copy of the order, check out this page: http://www.cmufaccc.org/

The big wins for the faculty association were an agreement that we could lower our out of pocket health insurance cost by moving to a higher copay for our health insurance, an expedited consideration by the court of an issue relating to pay for individuals who earned promotion last year, and a restoration of our First Amendment Rights.  The original order prohibited the FA from mass picketing.  In response to that order, students picketed throughout the week and also staged a silent protest at the courthouse this morning. Members of the Ferris State University Faculty Association drove an hour to CMU to picket in front of the administration building on Thursday.

What am I learning from this experience?  Well, I'm learning FA jargon.  I'm hearing "FA Strong" and "in solidarity" a lot this week.  We even chant while picketing, "Contract now!"  I've discovered why people are so loyal to the Michigan Education Association.  They paid every FA member for the work they did on Monday during the work stoppage and MESSA (our insurance provider) extended our health coverage in case CMU chose to cancel it.  Plus they sent in people from all over the state to assist with the job action.  I've seen how collective action can bring people together.  We've had several closed door meetings where almost all of the 600+ faculty members on campus attended.  People came willingly too, not like the annual college-wide meetings where they take attendance and threaten to dock your pay if you don't come in order to encourage attendance.  I've seen what a great tool Facebook is for sharing information.  Our closed group page for CMU faculty has an enormous amount of information on it.  On the downside, it's very clear from numerous comments at the meetings and on Facebook that the faculty's relationship with the University has been severely damaged by this situation.  One of the reasons I love working at CMU is the great relationship among employees on campus and the various policies CMU has in place that benefit employees.  I'm hoping that today's ruling is a step towards amicably resolving the bargaining issues that remain and in restoring the damaged relationship between the faculty and the administration.  I think it we will still have a long road to walk though.  I'm sure some of it will be with picket signs!

Temporary Restraining Order Issued

So, I spent the day at the crisis center answering questions about what was going on.  The most common question was whether we had additional t-shirts or buttons to support the cause.  CMU's faculty association has been ordered back to work by a local judge.  Here's the ex parte order: http://cmich.edu/documents/faculty/temp_restraining_order.pdf

It says that the university will suffer irreparable injury without it and it prohibits us from doing anything that is not the full, faithful and proper performance of our job duties.  The order says we cannot mass picket.  The word on the street is that students are planning protests for tomorrow.  

The hearing on the temporary restraining order is on Friday.  

Here's a news report on the situation.

Judge to CMU faculty: get back to work: woodtv.com

Picketing at CMU

Here I am on the picket line this morning (on the left).  The faculty association greeted the administration at 7 a.m. this morning with a sea of yellow shirts and signs.  I'm assigned to the crisis center.  Maybe my legal expertise will come in handy ...

Here's some commentary on the subject: http://www.cm-life.com/2011/08/22/editorial-work-stoppage-by-faculty-an-answer-to-university-inaction/

Job action at CMU?

For those of you who don't know, I'm a faculty member at Central Michigan University.  Classes are scheduled to start tomorrow, but, according to our campus newspaper, that won't happen.  Here's the article :

http://www.ourmidland.com/news/article_18146da4-cc5e-11e0-a80a-001cc4c03286.html

I'm not allowed to comment on this situation at this time, but maybe I'll post some pictures for you from the picket line.

NCPEA Conference

I'm attending the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration's 65th annual summer conference in Portland Oregon.  I have to say that I really like Portland.

Today I visited the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' Pioneer Courthouse.  The courthouse was built in 1875.  It was very cool to be able to see it.  Here are a few facts about the 9th Circuit.  No cases were being heard this week, though.  The 9th Circuit has four courthouses, one in each of the following locations: Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, and Pasedena, CA.  The 9th Circuit includes Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, California, Arizona, Hawaii, North Mariana Islands and Guam.

There were a few legal topics at the conference.  My colleague Betty Kirby and I presented about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  David Alexander and Jennifer Sughrue presented on School Resource Officers in the Public Schools.  Richard Geisel presented on Garcetti's effect on the free speech rights of public school administers. Here's the link to the website with more information about it: http://www.emich.edu/ncpeaprofessors/

These sessions, in addition to hearing Yong Zhao (again) about global education, and the networking were the highlights of the conference for me.  There were also a lot of good sessions on technology use.  I was only able to attend one, but the others looked great.

I was initially skeptical about attending this conference, but since it turned out well, maybe I'll attend next summer in Kansas City.

How will we get there from here? Educator Evaluations in Michigan

I attended the Michigan Department of Education Educator Evaluation Best Practices Conference on Friday.  Michigan is one of the 10 states that adopted legislation for new educator evaluations tied to student data in response to the Race to the Top competition.  Michigan's law calls for student growth to be a significant factor in a teacher's and administrator's evaluation decision.  The definitions of both "student growth" and "significant" are to be determined by the local districts, which in this state means bargained with the local unions.

There were a number of helpful presentations for districts looking for evaluation models to implement.  If you are looking for resources on this topic, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality has a list of teacher evaluation programs: www.tqsource.org  The Education Alliance of Michigan is coming out with a document in a few weeks recommending a process for engaging in the necessary negotiations and providing information about possible data sources on student growth other than state tests.  It promises to be good.

I thought the most interesting information was shared by Venessa Keesler from the Michigan Department of Education about the myths that are circulating around the state about the changes and the encouragement about the significant changes being made by the Department in a time of severe economic hardship in Michigan.  The state is proposing cutting the per pupil allotment between $470 to $700 dollars next year.  Our average student funding is around $7200.  Since I study teacher discipline, here's my favorite myth: 

Myth #1:  The purpose of this policy is to fire all the bad teachers.

•          Reality: The goal is NOT to fire teachers but to provide timely and reasonable feedback to help them develop goals and measure progress.  This ultimately will help improve the educational system.

I doubt this is entirely true, especially in light of the presentation that followed by Lisa Lachlan-Hache of the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality who pointed out that 59% of teachers say they know of someone in their building who is doing a bad job.  Her implication was that these tools will allow us to address that problem.  Of course, she could have meant through targeted professional development, not firing.

In the end, though, I'm a sucker for a happy ending, so I like Superintendent Mike Flanagan's claim that in Michigan "we are bottoming out," and "we have nowhere to go but up."  He says that Michigan is going to be an economic and academic international success story soon.  Although I'm skeptical, I really want to believe him.

Globalizing education in Michigan

Michigan's Superintendent of Public instruction spoke at the iNet conference in Lansing, Michigan yesterday.  The State Board of Education approved new cut scores on state educational assessments (MEAP & MME) so that they are consistent with College and Career Readiness standards.  Currently, about 90% of schools in Michigan are considered to be proficient on these tests because of the low cut scores.  The new reconfiguration of the cut scores will dramatically alter the number of schools with students passing these exams, pushing the passage rates into the 30-40% range.  This change has been described as moving Michigan from preparing students to work in a basic manufacturing economy to being college and career ready.  Mr. Flanagan described the change as an important step towards educational success and telling the truth about the status of our current educational system. He did not discuss what this would mean for schools under No Child Left Behind's requirements that they equip students to achieve proficiency on academic tests by the 2013-2014 school year or face sanctions.  

Superintendent Flanagan's discussion of the Board's decision fit well with the theme of the iNet conference, of developing globally competent students.  Professor Young Zhao (University of Oregon) and Bob Compton (high-tech Entrepreneur and documentary filmmaker) debated different viewpoints on what an educational system that produces globally competent students looks like.  Crompton advocated for placing a high value on academic rigorous courses for all students.  He said we should elevate the status of academic achievement in this culture like it is in other cultures that score well on international tests like PISSA and TIMMS.  Zhao said we should be careful not to place too much weight on the international tests.  The U.S. has a history of not scoring well on these, so it really shouldn't be a crisis now.  Instead, we should help students identify the things they are good at and they enjoy and allow them to pursue these interests in a structured manner.  Both speakers talked about the importance of entrepreneuership in the global economy and how local jobs will not be automatically available for future generations as they were in the past.

Michigan has moved in the direction that Crompton suggests with high academic requirements for all students. We require 4 years of math, 4 years of English, and 3 years of science in order to graduate high school. The underlying assumption is that there is a basic set of skills that all students need to acquire in order to participate in our society as a citizen and as a worker.  The question is whether this full schedule will also allow students to pursue the things they are best at and passionate about, so they can develop the creativity that is needed to be a successful entrepreneuer in the global economy.  I don't know the answer to this question, but I do have to say that I support more rigorous academic standards and so I applaud the Board's efforts in adopting both the graduation requirements and the more realistic cut scores on state tests.

Emerging Themes from the Office of Civil Rights

I'm also sitting in the ELA general session with Russlyn Ali.  I agree that the information and the exchange of ideas in the room has addressed many important issues in education policy.

Here are a couple of hot topics:

Racial segregation in schools.  OCR is concerned about the comparabiility of resources between districts, especially in light of the fact that many racially isolated districts aren't providing key resources to students.  They are working to develop tools for schools that want to voluntarily integrate.  Secretary Ali commented that she believed diversity is a compelling interest and that integration in diverse environments is good for everyone.  She then cited research that kids from racial and ethnic groups generally do better in integrated schools than in racially isolated schools.  Questions from the audience asked about the benefits of neighborhood schools and about the negative effects of racially isolated housing patterns.  Secretary Ali said OCR is working with other federal agencies to address some of these issues.

Strong teachers.  The OCR is working to transform the idea of what makes a great teacher.  It is more than just credentials and a college degree.   The goal is to define strong teachers using student achievement as a factor.  Secretary Ali acknowledge that there were real contractual issues around this issue and that teacher collective baragining agreements would have to be examined in order to make this kind of change.  When a superintedent from the audience asked a question about incorporating a well-rounded approach to measuring student achievement, the Secretary said that OCR would support local districts in coming up with new measures that better capture the whole student experience.  We need a picture of student growth that measures the whole development of the child and tools that have multiple measures.  It is the OCR's position that the locality is the best place to decide what makes a strong teacher a strong teacher.  But the Secretary did call for the wall separating teacher and student data be removed and to make the tests much better, such as improving their focus on critical thinking.

Title IX.  Secretary Ali mentioned that access to STEM courses for girls could be protected by Title IX like athletics.  I haven't heard a lot about this issue, so this is something to look into.

There was a lot more then this, but these are only the highlights.  I agree with Justin that if you are interested in these issues, consider joining ELA and coming to next year's conference in Chicago.  In the meantime you can follow education law and policy issues in this blog and on the ELA website.

Should Individuals with Past Drug Convictions be allowed to work in Schools?

This week the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law that required background checks for school employees and the firing of individuals who had been convicted of certain past crimes.  An employee of the Cincinnati school district who was fired under the law for a drug trafficking offense 32 years earlier brought a challenge to the law in Doe v. Ronan.  The plaintiff in this case earned his college degree after spending three years in a correctional facility for his 1976 conviction. He then became a drug-free counselor and eventually a hearing officer for the Cincinnati Public Schools.

The court declined to find that the law was unconstitutionally retroactive or that it impaired the employment contracts of school personnel.  Even though Doe had been employed by the district for 11 years, the employment contract at issue in this case was entered into in 2008, eight months after the passage of the 2007 background check law. Thus, the law's application was not retroactive.  It also did not impair the contract because the background check and employment disqualifications requirements are implied into the contracts made under the laws of Ohio for the relevant school personnel.

I think this is an interesting decision because the plaintiff's situation, as an 11 year employee of the district who lost his job because of a new background check law that found something he did 32 years ago, can generate a lot of sympathy.  Yet, if the legislature says individuals with former drug convictions cannot work in the schools, then they cannot.  

This case is a little more nuanced than I just described, though, because the law has a provision for individuals to show the district they have been rehabilitated, which would then allow them to be hired.  But this provision was not applicable here because drug offenses did not qualify and the administrative regulation that might have allowed this type of consideration was not yet in effect.

Personally, I'm in favor of the rehabilitation clauses that give an individual like Mr. Doe the ability to demonstrate that he is not a threat to students and that in fact he could make a good contribution to the district and their education of students in light of his experience and training.  But I also support the authority of the legislature to unilaterally decline hiring individuals who have committed certain crimes from working in schools. To me this case illustrates the need for thoughtful policy-making.  In so many instances laws that are passed have unintended consequences that seriously affect individuals like Mr. Doe.  The administrative process works to "fix" these problems but not in time to help someone like the plaintiff in this case who lost his job because of it.

Here is a link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-5072.pdf

With the California state budget in free-fall, why can’t the “Governator” charge students for AP classes?

This week the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, alleging that public schools are denying students the free education guaranteed by the state constitution by forcing their families to pay fees to participate in certain classes.  The lawsuit alleges that it is a common practice for California public schools to charge students for workbooks, textbooks, and even novels that are required reading in their courses.

The lawsuit takes specific aim at charging students for participation in Advanced Placement (AP) courses to cover the College Board fee to take the AP test at the end of the course.  It should be noted that passing the course’s AP exam is required for the course to count for college credit; however, it is the school’s decision whether to credit the high school transcript for coursework if the student does not take the exam. Since state education policy requires students to pay for and take the exam as part of course completion, the ALCU alleges that students from low socio-economic backgrounds are further disadvantaged academically because of the required fees.

In California, students can still participate in courses without paying the fees, but the school does not provide the books for students who do not pay for them. The lawsuit argues that California’s policy forces low income students to either not take the classes with fees or participate in the courses without the required textbooks, workbooks or novels, which is an inherent disadvantage. The ACLU complaint also notes an instance where one student was humiliated in class by having her name written on the board for not paying for her course materials.

 In a twist that appeals to the jurisprudence of adequacy funding in education, the lawsuit contends that students who cannot afford the school fees are being denied their fundamental right to basic educational equality that is guaranteed by the California Constitution.  The ACLU is asking that the court enjoin the schools from charging the illegal fees.

Here is a link to the ALCU website that contains the complaint:

https://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/103041

The Battle for Detroit Public Schools

One of the most interesting education law issues going on in Michigan is the battle between Robert Bobb, the Detroit Public Schools' (DPS) state-appointed emergency financial manageer and DPS's Board of Education. Multiple lawsuits have been filed.

It illustrates the tension between state authority over education and our tradition of locally controlled schools.  The DPS Board filed a civil suit last summer against Mr. Bobb alleging he exceeded his authority as emergency financial manager because he proposed changes to academics.

Mr. Bobb won the first round of the Board's lawsuit against his plan for the district which made sweeping academic changes when the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling against him.  Read the story here: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/05/robert_bobb_wins_round_but_det.html

The case continues in the circuit court, though, and Mr. Bobb and the eleven member board have been ordered to attend hearings related to the lawsuit.  Read the story here: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/06/robert_bobb_v_detroit_board_of.html

In the latest development, Robert Bobb will soon be making a recommendation to the Michigan Legislature that DPS have a permanent Inspector General, Auditor General, and Chief Financial Officer to combat years of financial mismanagement, waste, and corruption.  He wants these officials to have the authority to act independently of the local school board.  Read the story here: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/0/robert_bobb_preparing_proposal.html The battle continues ....

Michigan Supreme Court sides with teacher safety in student assault cases

On July 31, 2010 the Michigan Supreme Court in Lansing Schools Education Association v. Lansing Board of Education addressed an important safety issue for educators.  Michigan law requires that students who physically assault an educator be expelled.   In the lawsuit, four teachers, along with the local, state, and national education association alleged that in several instances students who physically assaulted teachers were suspended but not expelled.  The plaintiffs were seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Lansing School Board to expel the students.  The defendant Lansing Board of Education won the lawsuit at the Court of Appeals level, where plaintiffs were found to lack standing to pursue this claim.  In a decision last this week, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, saying that plaintiffs did indeed have standing.

This decision overturned an earlier Supreme Court decision, Lee/Cleveland Cliffs, that had adopted the federal view of standing and its case-or-controversy doctrine.  The court explained that it was returning to Michigan’s historical view on standing that is a limited, prudential approach.  This approach was one that gave courts discretion and granted standing to individuals who had a special interest in the case, not an interest in common with every other citizen in the state, in order to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy. Thus, the court reasoned in this case that teachers have a special interest in enforcing the expulsion law MCL 380.1311a(1), that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large if the statute is not enforced.  In order words, since these teachers were injured by students they, and the labor organizations that represent them, have a unique interest in making sure that the students were actually expelled (not just suspended).  This is especially true in light of the fact that the law was passed to make schools a safer, more effective working environment for teachers.

Under Michigan’s new approach, a litigant has standing whenever there is a legal cause of action.  Where a cause of action isn’t provided by law, the court may determine that a litigant has standing if that party has a special injury or right or substantial interest that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different than the citizenry at large or if the statute conveys standing.

This case interests me because in one of the first school law classes I taught, one of my students, a high school teacher, was assaulted and injured by a student as she attempted to break up a fight.  The whole class was shocked by the lack of recourse she had.  The student immediately left the district, so the school board took no action against the student and the teacher did not press criminal charges.  For teachers who are assaulted by students, this decision will be a welcome relief. 

Interestingly, earlier in my career I served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan representing the State in various matters, including purchasing.  We had numerous disappointed bidders, i.e. companies who were unsuccessful in their attempts to secure contracts with the State, attempt to sue to enforce statutes that required the State to follow certain bidding procedures.  The courts in those cases routinely ruled that these bidders lacked standing.  The bidders’ arguments were essentially the same as the educators in these cases—we have a special interest in pursuing these claims so you should let us.  Under the reasoning of the Lansing Schools Education Association case, these bidders may be able to be granted standing to pursue these claims.  I do not think that would be a good thing because most of the claims that were brought by the disappointed bidders were based more on their disgruntled status than any significant variance from the law.  Of course, public school teachers are public servants and the law in this situation is more straightforward than the state bidding procedures, so educators are more likely to bring a lawsuit to enforce the expulsion law in a manner that would benefit the public as a whole rather than attempt to pursue a personal vendetta against a student.

Michigan's New Teacher Retirement Law

Earlier this month the Michigan Legislature passed a new law affecting Michigan's retirement system for teachers.  The new law makes three significant changes: (1) offers an incentive for teachers who retire by September 1, (2) requires teachers to start contributing 3% of their salary into a retiree health plan and (3) creates a hybrid defined benefit and defined contribution plan for new school employees (i.e. those hired after July 1, 2010).  Up to this point, Michigan public school teachers, except for those working in public school academies (Michigan's version of charter schools), participate in a defined benefit retirement program.  New teachers will automatically have 2% of their salaries deducted for their defined contribution retirement plan, unless they choose to opt out.

The news reports say that up to 50,000 teachers in Michigan are eligible to retire under this incentive.  This is almost 1/2 of the 103,000 teachers in this state.  So it could potentially have a large impact on our teaching force.  The hope is to reduce costs for districts that are struggling financially by getting rid of expensive experienced teachers and hiring newer less costly ones. The average teacher salary in Michigan is approximately $54,000 while the average starting salary is $35,000.  The school district my kids attend said that they expect to save $30,0000 per teacher who decides to retire.  Of course the Michigan Education Association predicts that the retirement incentive, a higher retirement multiplier, is not enough to get anyone to retire who wasn't already planning to.  The business interests have praised the bill saying that it is a step in the right direction toward the needed structural reform in education.  The State is hoping that 28,000 teachers retire.

As a public employee with a defined contribution plan, I'm okay with educators having that type of retirement plan too.  Of course the recent dip in the stock market gives us all pause about our financial security in retirement. What I really don't like about this legislation is the mandatory 3% contribution for retirement health benefits because there is no guarantee that employees will actually receive these benefits in the future.  In my last post on employment issues, I said that employee compensation is an issue that needs to be considered in Michigan.  With this in mind, I do support the new retirement legislation as a way to address this issue without actually reducing the good wages that educators in Michigan receive.  And it would be wonderful if some of the new teachers who have been waiting in some cases for years for a full-time teaching position are able to secure them.  Rewarding experienced teachers with a retirement incentive is a good way to make this happen.

Here is a link to the law -- Public Act 75 of 2010 - http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vb4trbrlyqcknzvtb2d3uo45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2010-SB-1227

AERA Conference in Denver

If any are you going to the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in Denver later this week, I want to let you know about the Law & Education SIG sessions. This is where you will be guaranteed to hear about education law issues. Plus, you will be able to meet other people interested in these topics. 

Saturday, May 1st   Special Topics in Education Law Roundtable Session    

            Sheraton, Grand Ballroom Section 2              10:35 a.m. to 12:05 p.m.

 Sunday, May 2nd               Constitutional Considerations in Education Roundtable Session

          Sheraton, Grand Ballroom Section 2                 8:15 to 9:45 a.m.

 Sunday, May 2nd               Special Topics in K-12 Education Law Paper

           Sheraton, Plaza Court 3                                12:25 to 1:55 p.m.

Monday, May 3rd             Special Topics in Higher Education Law Paper

           Sheraton, Plaza Court 2                                2:15 to 3:45 p.m.

Monday, May 3rd             Law and Education SIG Business Meeting and Panel Discussion:

                                       Legal Research and Writing for Emerging Scholars

 Sheraton, Governor's Square 10               6:15 to 8:15 p.m.

Columbine

I had the chance to visit with Dave Cullen the author of the New York Times Bestseller Columbine who was visiting campus to speak about his book. He spent ten years investigating the story of the April 20, 1999 school massacre. The book evolved from his experience as a journalist who was on the scene within the first hour of the tragedy. 

The book contains the stories of both the killers (Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold) and several of the victims (Patrick Ireland, Cassie Bernall, Daniel Rohrbough, & Dave Sanders), as it dispells many of the common myths about what really happened that day, why the murders occurred, and communicates lessons on healing and forgiveness.

Cullen is meticulous in his research and his presentation of the evidence about the events that day and leading up to the killings. He describes Eric as a psychopath who was intent on killing as many people as possible in order to prove his own superiority and just for the fun of it while Dylan was depressed and suicidal but over time bought into Eric's vision of human destruction. The boys planned the attack for over a year and their primary weapons were bombs not guns. Fortunately the main bombs did not detonate. Cullen explains that the boys were not outcasts or part of a Trench Coat Mafia and that they did not target particular groups of students; rather their intention was to kill as many people as possible. Their rampage ended with their own suicides.

The stories of the events that day provide a vivid picture of the chaos that was taking place both inside and outside of Columbine High School--the parents desperately searching for their children, the teachers and administrators grasping to understand what was happening and trying to shepherd the students to safety, and the police attempting to contain the danger and apprehend the killers.

I was enthralled as I listened to the book, in part because it is so well written, but more so because I felt compelled to find out the answers to the questions of what happened and why and what can we do to prevent something like this from ever happening again? It was such a senseless tragedy. I walked away with a lot of answers about exactly what happened and some reassurance that there were warning signs in both boys that significant trouble was brewing. Eric had a website that contained a hit list and spewed his hatred towards the whole world. Both boys were in trouble with the law for theft and vandalism. They actually kept journals and created videos that chronicled their plans. But some of the biggest lessons in the book are about forgiveness and healing and the fact that healing happens faster and more completely when the victims forgive the perpetrators. Ultimately, Cullen advises that we shouldn't rush the healing after something of this magnitude happens.

The book was so interesting, I had to include it in Edjurist. If you really want some legal lessons, the tragedy did spawn a lot of legal action. Here are some of the key legal outcomes:

• Mark Manes & Phillip Duran received prison terms for their roles in securing weapons for the boys.
• A $2.53 million settlement was reached between the families of Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold and the families of the victims. $1,568,000 came from the families' homeowner policies. Read the story in the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/us/2.53-million-deal-ends-some-columbine-lawsuits.html?pagewanted=1
• Jefferson County Sherriff's Office and Jefferson County School District were able to claim government immunity in the lawsuits against them. However, the lawsuit by the family of teacher Dave Sanders was allowed to continue and was eventually settled. See CBS News at www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/27/national/main319250.shtml

Michigan education summit

I attended the Education Town Hall meeting sponsored by the Center for Michigan this morning. It was very interesting. There were three panels of speakers to discuss the main issues facing Pre-K Education, K-12 Education, and Higher Education in Michigan. The panelists were asked to focus on three big-picture questions: performance, funding and affordability, and innovation. Not surprisingly, all three panels thought that the state needs to make education funding a priority and direct more, not less, funds into it.

The Pre-K panel (Jack Kresnak & Judy Samelson) touted an investment in this segment of education as having a high return on investment. When the audience had a chance to vote, they agreed by saying that if they could only invest in one sector of education, the money would go here. Michigan currently does not have universal public pre-k education.

The tenor of the K-12 panel (Mike Flanagan, David Hecker, Christine Johns, Tim Melton, & Dan Quisenberry) was much more contentious with Michigan's Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Flanagan encouraging schools to Reduce, Reform, and Reimagine, Representative Tim Melton saying that Michigan's schools need to face the hard reality that our state has lost a lot of jobs and therefore a lot of income, David Hecker advocating for paying for quality teachers and the need to negotiate any changes in teacher contracts, and other speakers pushing the need to train students to participate in the global economy by teaching 21st century skills.

The Higher Education panel (Marilyn Schlack, Nikki Searle, Lou Anna K. Simon, & Cynthia Wilbanks) didn't have a coherent theme. The University of Michigan's representative made the argument that research institutions play a crucial role in innovation and creativity, vital aspects of the economic development of our state. Michigan State University's president discussed its Shaping the Future initiative that has been cutting costs and increasing the effectiveness of the university. The student representative from Grand Valley State University made a plea for more money for higher educational institutions in light of the plight of students trying to make ends meet with high tuition costs.

What struck me the most about this series of panels was the divergent views on how serious Michigan's economic situation is and how it will affect our public education system. Some speakers, most notably Rep. Tim Melton and President Lou Anna Simon, are actively engaged in re-working the system to grapple with Michigan's harsh economic reality. The figures that were given during the event said that we have lost 1 million jobs in the state and that we've fallen from in the top 10 in per capita income to 38th. Other speakers, the ones asking for more money without seriously considering how to use the current funds more effectively, seemed stuck in the past, hoping that somehow more money for education will materialize as it always has. Although that would be nice, I don't think that is going to happen. So, when asked what structural changes should be made to Michigan's education system, the audience said that teachers' health care and pension costs should be addressed (i.e. cut) first. I think this is a difficult choice but one that is going to have to be seriously considered in Michigan.