Sanity with Zero-Tolerance (Finally)

I hate zero-tolerance policies. Always have. They are just wholly unnecessary, legally silly, probably discriminatory, generally bad for kids and, on top of all that, don't even work. 

So, to my delight, finally zero-tolerance seems to have the worst of it in policy circles lately. Credit to Arne Duncan and the U.S. DOE for releasing new guidance last week that tries to put the brakes on mandatory suspensions and expulsions. I think the Secretary has intelligent things to say in this release video:   

The bottom line is that the law entrusts principals and other school leaders with the discretion to make appropriate decisions toward novel situations amongst kids. These disciplinary decisions can be incredibly difficult with intense lobbying on all sides. Many tears are shed and sleepless nights suffered over how to appropriately discipline kids. But, that is the job. It is a core function of a school leader and the manifestation of the trust provided to that position in our society. To attempt locally to shirk that responsibility through the use of hastily adopted zero-tolerance policies is cowardly. The policy position may appear tough, but it actually speaks to the weakness of the proposer. 

I am glad to see the light at the end of the dark, dark tunnel of zero-tolerance. 

Cone of Shame

This happened last year and I somehow missed it: teacher permits "cone of shame" on students -- which is essentially a dog collar with a cone attached when the students misbehaved. Brought to my attention again by @sjciske. 

 Apparently, she was just transferred and not fired. Being a science teacher saved her. 

By the way, I'm not sure what is happening in Pasco County, FL, but they certainly seem to make the education law news a lot. 

A Nice Video on Overcoming Bullying

I am a sucker for this kind of stuff. Passion. Art. Poetry. Combined into a beautiful message for kids that are facing challenges. There should be more of this. 

h/t Jayson Richardson

We Need Fewer Guns

Today, I was moved by the testimony of former Representative Giffords, "Too many children are dying. Too many children." You owe it to this country to at least listen to that video (click the link). 

I am a hunter. I grew up with guns, I still enjoy shooting, and I personally own a shotgun for that purpose. My own child went deer hunting just two weeks ago and I was proud of him. Most of my family and friends are gunowners and hunters as well, so they are likely to disagree with what I am about to say. So be it. 

We need fewer guns. Because "too many children are dying."

That's the long and short of this. Too many children are dying. We must respond and there is only one reasonable path. We need fewer guns.

Guns beget guns beget guns and a society with more guns is not safer, it is more dangerous.  

Not only are children dying from random acts of insanity at schools like those in Connecticut, Colorado, Kentucky, Virginia, and just about everywhere else ... but too many kids are killing themselves as well. There is too much unnecessary death and the always present tool seems to be the gun. 

I work with schools. I am deeply saddened by what I have seen these last ten years. Now, armed police roam the halls between our classrooms. Children not only learn to read these days, they learn to live in environments constantly patrolled by gun barrels. They learn to live in fear. That should be embarassing to us as a country. Children are in the presence of guns more frequently in the United States than in any third world country. It is compulsory in the United States for kids to spend their days watched by guns. I am embarassed at that reality.  

Now, serious people all over the country talk of arming principals or teachers. We should be disgraced at the thought. Anyone that advocates for giving educators guns but won't consider limiting assault rifles has a serious detachment problem from sanity. 

Guns beget guns beget guns. There is no solution to more guns except for more guns. Someone did actually define that cycle as insanty, once. So, our current national policy toward guns and kids is definitionally insane.  

Our poor schools do not know how to respond, except only to join in and try to stay ahead in this vicious cycle. I work with school leaders. I know what a difficult position they are in. So difficult, in fact, that reasonable school leaders have even started purchasing their own assault rifles for their office, so that in a shootout they will not be outgunned, I suppose. Where does this end? Metal detectors, surveillance cameras, police controlling our school hallways ... we have already given up so much that we cannot get back and for what? The children keep dying. Some cry out liberty and freedom in this debate, but where is our children's liberty? We have deprived them of their liberty, even of their lives, in our disillusionment that owning an AK makes us free. 

I don't care whether guns kill people or people kill people or whatever nonsense cliche you want to throw around to avoid the painful truth. Dead kids lie in graves that should be playing in schoolyards. Far, far too many of them. 

"Too many children are dying." We need fewer guns. 

Texas: Legal to Force Students to Wear RFID Chip at School

A district court judge in San Antonio upheld the expulsion of a student at a magnet school for refusing to wear a RFID chip (radio frequency identification: the technology that allows for geographic tracking at all times, like the thing you can have implanted in your dog). Not surprisingly, the ACLU jumped into the case on the part of the student, arguing that this violated the students privacy and is an unacceptable step toward a surveillance society. 

The school argued that this is all harmless and that the chips were only used to locate students that are not in the classroom, but still in the school building (they said it cannot work outside the school building and would not be given to third parties). The district was convinced they were losing over a million dollars a year in state revenue because students were in hallways and not in classrooms. Further, as a magnet program, the student can return to their home school if she did not like the policy. 

A lively discussion already developed on twitter, but let's continue the conversation (with longer arguments) in the comments. I will put my thoughts in the comments also. 

So, pick a side. Are you okay with this policy and this ruling? 

H/T: This came from Jon Becker's twitter feed with the hashtag #SchoolLawWTF attached. Appropriate. 

Is YouTube Cleaning Up Our Classrooms?

It might have in Nashville - where this teacher was dismissed after students caught him raging in the classroom on video. Students catching teachers doing [insert bad thing here] on YouTube happens all the time. Just go to YouTube and search. I think you will be surprised.

But, harder question, is this good for our classrooms? Openness is generally a good thing, so hard to find much fault in it, understandably. But, sometimes the actions that are needed for students are actions that do not come off well in video. I'll remind you that corporeal punishment is still legal in a large number of states. That is not going to come off well on video even though legislatures still consider it an appropriate disciplinary tool.

The classroom in Nashville was clearly out of control and students were not showing the proper deference to the teacher. Now, a good teacher would not let it get to that point and would have better ideas for resolving that situation than flipping over desks. But, to think all of our teachers are going to know what to do when presented with that situation is naive. There are over 3 million teachers in the U.S. ... but there are certainly over 3 million smart phones in the classroom right now. Thus, there is a high potential that each teacher might be recorded at some point ... that point being their lowest more often than not. Thus, teachers are much less likely to reach those low points. Is that good? Probably, but let's also acknowledge that lowpoints are not necessarily bad points in a teacher's career. A low point can be a great learning experience for both the teacher and the students if handled properly. Specifically, those low points can frequently show students just where the boundaries of that classroom lie and, sometimes, students will at least respect that point. 

As you can see, I'm not real sure of my thoughts on this one, so I'd be happy to hear yours. 

New Title IX Guidance

The DOE has released new Title IX guidance. Here is the official DOE Page.

Just from a quick scan, the thing that stands out to me is the focus on the language "sexual violence" instead of "sexual harassment."

 Sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. In order to assist recipients, which include school districts, colleges, and universities (hereinafter “schools” or “recipients”) in meeting these obligations, this letter explains that the requirements of Title IX pertaining to sexual harassment also cover sexual  violence, and lays out the specific Title IX requirements applicable to sexual violence.  Sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. In order to assist recipients, which include school districts, colleges, anduniversities (hereinafter “schools” or “recipients”) in meeting these obligations, this letter1explains that the requirements of Title IX pertaining to sexual harassment also cover sexual violence, and lays out the specific Title IX requirements applicable to sexual violence.

I'm not sure the purpose of this, whether this was just meant to cover a small component of Title IX, or to try to redirect the broader discussion (hopefully just the former). Either way, I don't really like the move. Title IX is much broader than just what comes to mind when we hear the term "sexual violence." Additionally, I think more clarification is needed on the harassment part than on the violence part. I feel practitioners are pretty good at distinguishing and punishing violence, but not so good at distinguishing and punishing harassment. There is far too much sexual violence, don't get me wrong, so focusing on that is a worthwhile endeavor and much of the guidance seems aimed at prevention procedures. But, I hope this is not going to take the spotlight away from the harassment and bullying components of Title IX - which still need a lot of clarification. 

Thanks to Jason Block (who you will be hearing a lot more from over the next couple years) for the tip. 

You can see some of our comments on the last DOE guidance on bullying here - plus, why I love ELA.

Race to Nowhere

For those folks that live relatively close to Lexington, tonight the P20 Innovation Lab is hosting a free screening of the new movie Race to Nowhere. More details on the showing are here. You can view a trailer here. I'll be moderating a panel discussion after the movie. My friend Ellen Usher (a rising superstar in the learning motivation ranks) is organizing the screening and also participating in the panel. Joining the panel are Wayne Lewis, John Thelin, & Huajing Xiu Maske. 

I've viewed the movie already, but you'll have to come to the screening to get my (and my friends) thoughts. I'll update this post later with details. I'm looking forward to this one. 

Year Round Discipline?

Why a we doing this? 

It's dumb and probably not authorized under law. 

Here's the situation. No other branch of government is going to stop a school from expanding their authority in this way. It is just less responsibility on the police, parks, etc. In fact, mayors and other elected officials I am sure love when schools on their own and without funding take on additional responsibility. 

But, the way the law works, once you start taking on additional responsibility, it is very difficult to get rid of it. For instance, several years back, I railed against schools taking on additional responsibility for regulating off-campus speech. But, down the road a bit now, patrolling Facebook and whatnot is now largely seen as a core duty of schools. There was no money for that ... it was just something that schools decided to do on their own (and no one stopped them). And then schools have the gall to talk about not having enough funding to do these things. 

So, again, I'm begging you schools to stay out of this stuff. If the Legislature wanted you to regulate in the summer, they would tell you to and they would pay for it. Otherwise, it is not your problem. I get the arguments that bad behavior might translate into the school year, but that is never going to go away no matter how much you try to regulate. 

Stop it.

Just how stupid ...

Reading a ton of cases this weekend (finishing up a Yearbook chapter that is overdue) and I am once again struck by a simple question ... as a teacher, just how stupid do you have to be to lose a lawsuit? And, I think, the answer is pretty damn stupid. It is amazing to me how many mildly stupid things the courts allow teachers to get away with. Between immunity statutes, the high Section 1983 bar, actual knowledge provisions for harassment, the lower search and seizure standard, etc., the simple fact is that the law is heavily construed in favor of the school and school employees. And, even then, in cases where it is the word of the teacher v. the word of the student ... typically the teacher wins. So, not only do you have to do something really dumb to even qualify as doing something illegal, but then there usually has to be a good deal of evidence to find for the student (as in, you can't even cover it up well). 

So, seriously, it takes a really stupid act followed by a really stupid cover up on the part of a teacher to even make it to court.

Yet, in case after case, I am shocked by the ignorance of some teachers. Now, the worst of the worst make it into caselaw, so I am seeing the worst teachers in the America over the past few days. But, literally in the last year there were about 2 dozen federal cases dealing just with teacher sexual abuse of students, teachers taking searches way too far, teachers letting a student who had passed out from dehydration lay on the football field while they held a team meeting, teachers hitting kids, paddling for missing shots in a basketball game, a teacher playing on his computer while a student is forcibly undressed in front of a crowd in the classroom. And, this is just a smattering because it is only what is reported, the actual number is far, far higher. 

So, seriously, what the hell is going on?   

I have always defended the American teacher, been kind to teachers' unions, and generally given the benefit of the doubt. I was a teacher, so I know how it goes sometimes. But, can we all agree there is some kind of systemic problem in the teaching system that these kinds of horridly idiotic incidents continue to occur year after year after year? Something is broken. Pedophiles must be being attracted to teaching. The teacher dismissal process must be encouraging misbehavior. Professional standards boards must be woefully inadequate. Colleges of Education must be totally missing the boat in screening these folks. Maybe all of these things, but, something, clearly, is wrong. 

We cannot continue to permit these flatly ignorant humans to enter the teaching force.  

90 Lashes for a Cell Phone in Class + Prison - Literally

Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? 

It's not. 

And, it happened in a country we are closely allied with, Saudi Arabia. 

Why do we ... ? Oh, never mind I guess, I think we all already know the answers here.  

The upside though? One less county our students are going to have to compete with in the future. I guess they don't bother to stop and think about what happens when the oil runs out. 

h/t @stevejmoore    

"Cyber-bullying" Redux--The AALS Panel

I have posted in this space once before regarding the recent phenomenon of "cyber-bullying."  I have come to believe since then that tort-based law provides redress for most of what we generally term "cyber-bullying," and that much of what we use this term to describe is (and should be) outside the reach of school regulation. 

At the recently-concluded AALS conference, however, a panel of very distinguished scholars (including Lyrissa Lidsky, my torts professor from UF Law, whose name was inadvertently left off the official program) discussed the question whether students who engage in cyber-bullying, cyber-slamming (defamation), and/or cyber-stalking while in law school should be prohibited from sitting for the bar exam, due to an inherent lack of "character and fitness for the profession."  (No lawyer jokes in the comments, please--that's low-hanging fruit).  The panel also considered how, if at all, nefarious social networking conduct should be addressed, in light of First Amendment concerns. 

I found the discussion very illuminating.  Interestingly, the discussion turned very quickly from considering speech with an independent tortious or criminal character (threats, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and stalking) to speech that does not violate a law, but is nevertheless racist, sexist, or incredibly boorish (the boorish example was one of a Florida lawyer suspended from practice for calling a presiding judge a "witch," if I remember correctly).  The former category (torts and crimes) seemed to garner agreement among the panelists that the bar should consider it as (non-dispositive) evidence of bad character and/or fitness, if it is properly and certainly established as the speech of the specific bar applicant.  I am not in favor of categorical rules that have the effect of limiting speech (even someone who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater could be making an honest mistake, after all).  Thus, I was pleased to see that none of the panelists appeared to favor automatic exclusion from the bar for any conduct that we decide to put under the nebulous label, "cyber-bullying." 

The latter category, however, garnered fewer conclusions and was left open at the end of the discussion.  Difficult questions were raised: Can a racist or sexist (as demonstrated by virulent online comments) nevertheless be a good lawyer?  Is "judgment" (defined as judging what one chooses to say publicly) part of "character and fitness"?    Can we trust character-and-fitness committees with such determinations?  Do character-and-fitness concerns trump First Amendment rights (including the right to be a racist, a sexist, or a boor)?  I do not have ready answers to these questions, but they illustrate how delicate the non-exam portion of admission to the bar can be, and how introducing a vague concept like "cyber-bullying" into the mix could prove much more difficult than it might seem. 

Guns at School - Should the Courts Get More Involved?

Kid goes hunting in the morning. Puts gun in truck. Drives truck to school. Authorities find it. Kid expelled. Lawsuit ensues. Community upset. 

This is a pattern that gets repeated several times a year, especially in rural America. The latest one getting national press, as Scott M. passes along, is just north of Sacramento in Willows, CA. Pretty much the same story with the additional twists of the student parking off campus and the NRA getting involved to represent the kid (a pretty bold political move, but one that will sit well with most of rural America). Here is the student, his mother (and Fox) making their case.

Let me start this by saying I did this when I was a kid ... on at least a few occasions. Not intentionally. Not maliciously. I just didn't think about it and even if I had, I wouldn't have known it was that wrong to do (this was before I decided I needed to do something with my life, and thus, pay attention). Hunting and guns were part of our community. I shot my first gun when I was probably around 7 or 8 and I got my own gun around 14 (an 870 Remington pump action, which has served me well over the years, by the way). Anyway, suffice to say that if our Superintendent had conducted similar drug dog searches on any given day, at least 5-10 of my fellow classmates would have been in trouble - so, he overlooked it, intentionally.

Okay, that was pre-Columbine. Pre-Paducah. Before all of that group and thus before zero-tolerance policies really took hold. It was also before drug-dogs really became a weapon, before metal-detectors were widespread, and before school-resource officers were all over the place. It has only been about 15-20 years ago, but a lot has changed in those years.

So, I'm conflicted.

The easy post for me to write here is anti-NRA and pro-expulsion for this student. Nice and tidy, one policy for the whole U.S. or at least the whole state, error on the side of caution, and let's call it a day.  On the other hand, it would be easy for me to argue that these urban-oriented policies are just another attack on rural America. To point out that kids used to leave their guns in the corner of the one-room schoolhouse. That this is very different than this. And, that kids like me who grew up with guns respected them more, and thus, I guess, wouldn't shoot people. A third easy argument is to argue for administrative discretion. That local administrators know the local needs and thus should set the local policy. If they don't, that is the whole point of school boards anyway, right?

All of these fail. What works in San Francisco doesn't necessarily work in Willows. 2010 is not 1910. And, I don't really know any serious educators that would totally trust school boards with this kind of decision.

So, I'm conflicted. But, I think rightly so because all of these arguments result in lives ruined. There are no good answers here. There are no clear lines and folks that argue there should be don't get the whole picture, in my view.

But, when there are no clear lines and no good answers, that's when our judicial system really steps up. It is these very tough issues where collective judicial action might navigate us though it in the least harmful way. So, I support the NRA lawsuit in so much as it causes us to consider these questions more deeply in each of these different contexts. To take 4-5 days and lay out the arguments and witnesses and experts. To consider it in California, in South Dakota, in Missouri, in Iowa, in Washington, in Pennsylvania, and everywhere else because 6 percent of students report carrying a weapon to school - a number not skewed by race, but a number historically higher, but dropping, for rural areas (although NCES needs to ask that question again).This kind of judicial intervention is going to cost us, of course. Judges are going to make some dumb decisions and we are going to spend a lot of tax-payer dollars that a strict zero-tolerance policy wouldn't require (although this law review makes a good case that we were spending them already anyway: 40 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 325). 

But, I think judges should be more critical of these policies. More demanding of legislatures. I support the law being more complex, because the issue is currently more complex than the law allows. We have to remember that we are still new at regulating student behavior in this way. When my grandpa went to school literally in the one room schoolhouse, guns were permitted. When my dad went to school, guns were common. When I went to school, guns were overlooked and when my brother went to school, guns were banned. We have changed a lot over the years, perhaps for better. But those changes are not clean breaks and our national clean-break, zero-tolerance policy has resulted in a lot of ridiculous outcomes.

So, while I think the NRA is probably going to lose this case (and rightly so under our current law), I support them bringing it, even if just to make a statement and to force us to consider the questions more deeply. 

Catching Up

Well, ELA was awesome, but I was mostly MIA on the Net. So, it's time to catch up a little. 

First, more stupid zero-tolerance fallout. A girl brought empty gun shells to show science teacher ... and suspended. This is not as bad as some others, but these kind of stories continue weekly these days. At some point the embarrassment factor must kick in. h/t S.M.

Great report from Fordham law on state data system privacy elements and the Washington Post coverage (EdWeek too). I can't disagree with the authors legally, but I do think their natural inclination to protect, protect, protect is the wrong inclination and is going to slow down important research that could improve schools. The solution here is just to let public universities store the data warehouses. We are public institutions within the public trust, but it connects data and researchers more closely. I would like to see more universities getting into this business. 

Bryan Jason Ford (@BryanJasonFord) on the implications of the Supreme Court's denial of cert. in Stancourt v. Worthington City Sch. Dist.. This is pretty good if you are a special ed. person or interested in the Supreme Court approval process. 

So can we be done with Zero-Tolerance Policies Yet?

The camping knife, fork and spoon suspension of a 6 year old for violating the school's zero-tolerance policy is making the rounds this morning from the NY Times. I am not even going to comment on that story, because it is just the latest in a long line of stupid discipline from schools under zero-tolerance policies.

But, public opinion now seems firmly entrenched against all these ridiculous suspensions, yet we keep zero-tolerance policies on the books? Why? Just the CYA reason in case, God-forbid, a serious school violence incident happens at a school in your state? I can't really think of any other reason for legislators to support retention of these policies. And, if that is the only reason, then perhaps it is time return to sane school disciplinary policies.

Update: See Rich H.'s additional facts in his comment - seems like all the of facts might not have been made clear in the story.

School Discipline Litigation Stats in Ed. Next

Source: Education Next, Law and Disorder in the ClassroomHere is a lovely little article in Education Next on school discipline cases arising out of classrooms. The authors are Richard Arum and his doctoral student Doreet Preiss.The article is from a larger essay that is part of this book out from Brookings.

I find their statistics interesting and their presentation sort of cool. I like that they explicitly said they limited their research to only federal and state appellate level cases, even though federal district level cases are also reported for the most part. I liked this statement:

Of course, we did not include the vast majority of litigation, which was either settled before hearing or never reached state and federal appellate courts. Still, our methods provide a way to gauge the general character and broad trends in legal challenges that contemporary educators face. Appellate-level court cases define case law, generate media coverage, influence public perceptions, and can be tracked over time as an empirical indicator of the broad parameters of court climate toward school discipline.

Also, I sort of liked how they broke out the data (just read the article for it) even finding some racial and socio-economic conclusions (although I would fear there is not enough data for too broad of assumptions in this regard).

Anyway, give it a read and think especially about the methodology they used. I think we will see more and more of this type of research in the near future.

Gigs Up Anti-Bullying Laws

The AP is calling them out:

Forty-four states expressly ban bullying, a legislative legacy of a rash of school shootings in the late '90s, yet few if any of those measures have identified children who excessively pick on their peers, an Associated Press review has found. And few offer any method for ensuring the policies are enforced, according to data compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Anti-bullying laws have long been sort of a running joke amongst ed. law types who knew the laws had no teeth. They are a good political measure, and they may even be an adequate policy measure, but as a legal concept they are sort of like one of those "study groups" that gets formed in Washington ... pure window dressing.

It will be interesting to see if now that the secret is out these laws begin to toughen up. Legally it is a hard sell, which is why they were not tough in the first place, but I don't think we've really seen a super-creative anti-bullying law yet. I for one really hope we don't see them get tougher. We toughened up zero-tolerance policies only to loosen them later and I would expect a similar pattern here if these laws begin to have real penalties. The bottom line is that school officials just need the flexibility in this area and the weak anti-bullying laws keep that in place.

h/t Alexander Russo

Some Preliminary Thoughts on "Cyber-bullying" and the First Amendment

I'm sure that Justin has touched on this topic at some point, but the semester just ended at my institution, and some of the papers in my education law seminar have started me thinking on the issue of school bullying--more specifically "cyber-bullying." Now, this is a concept that people in my generation would have had a hard time even grasping in my high school days, but the concern over cyber-bullying has become pervasive. Some of this concern has even prompted legislation. However, I'm not sure that we even have a good definition of what constitutes cyber-bullying, and upon initial reflection, I think that what we define as bullying makes a great deal of difference on the First Amendment question.

Traditionally, we have thought of "bullying" as threats of violence (usually immediate, as in "Give me your lunch money, or I'll beat you up!"), or the actual violence itself. Neither of these definitions would raise any First Amendment concerns, as assault and battery are clearly punishable already under our criminal laws. However, in recent years, we have begun to equate incessant teasing with bullying. Some have suggested that the Colmbine killers were "bullied" in this way, although there is much dispute as to whether the Columbine killers were even "bullied" at all.

The concept of "cyber-bullying" seems to embrace the idea that incessant teasing, particularly in the form of defamation (e.g., starting rumors) or public disclosure of private facts (e.g., sexting), constitutes punishable bullying. This seems to be where the First Amendment problem comes in. Defamation is kind of an "exception" to the First Amendment (like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), and public disclosure of private facts does not fall within the First Amendment's protections because two private parties can lawfully agree to the secrecy of certain information if they want to.

However, they are analyzed differently. We have crafted our defamation laws such that a person not defaming a public figure (like the Pope or Oprah) can be held liable in civil court merely for making a public statement that was false and that harmed the subject of the statement. So, where this conduct is termed "bullying," the party engaging in the defamation seems to be outside the protection of the First Amendment, either directly (due to defamation) or indirectly (due to deeming defamation "bullying"). Thus, there would not seem to be a First Amendment problem with schools punishing students for defaming other students under state bullying laws.

Public disclosure of private facts creates a different problem. In order to prove a civil claim for this type of harm, one must show that the speaker had a duty to keep private information about the aggrieved party secret. In most cases of "sexting," I doubt this would be possible. In sexting cases (or other public disclosure types of bullying cases like "outing" someone's sexual orientation, etc.), the information may come into the hands of the bully through a relationship either expressly or impliedly establishing the duty to keep the information secret, in which case its disclosure would be redressable under our civil laws, and thus outside the realm of the First Amendment. However, the information might also (and I think more often) come to light in normal discussion among friends, with no duty of confidentiality either expressed or implied. It would seem that, in these cases, as long as the information is true or the photos are not doctored, the disclosure might just be deemed expressive conduct.

If so, how far do Tinker and its progeny allow the school to reach? Can schools punish public disclosures of facts stated off campus through electronic media (e.g., Facebook), where there does not appear to be any sort of confidentiality understanding between the speaker and the subject? Are the invidious effects of such bullying seen during the school day disruption enough to satisfy Tinker's standards?  What about ex ante?  This seems to me a very difficult question that could chill the enforcement of some state statutes seeking to reach this sort of conduct. 

Denver still on edge from Columbine

Way back when, as a high schooler, I turned down a student that asked me out (yes, I know you are shocked (admittedly I was too - I didn't get a lot of date requests)). In response, she wrote in a notebook something like 200-300 different ways to kill me. It was sort of impressive actually and kind of creative. Some friends of hers made me aware of it and she admitted to writing it and eventually I saw it. But, I never thought her threat was that serious and it was never reported (of course, that was pre-Columbine ... maybe today I would have a different response).

Anyway, it is going to take us a long time to recover from Columbine, as this similar story in Denver shows. People are always on edge to different degrees and I have seen it in Kentucky as well, as Paducah is still on the minds of teachers and administrators. But, eventually, we need to get over it. We can't forget it and need to learn the lessons from it, but we can't be so on edge as to consider every threat legitimate even after it is investigated. It doesn't do a service to our students who, after having their young hearts broken or being embarrassed, come up with inappropriate, but ultimately non-threatening, responses. Our students are not adults and we don't need to be treating them that way. It is good to see this story from Denver ... they are getting over it and it is a good signal to the rest of us that we should be as well.

h/t Scott M.

Edjurist TV Episode 4: 2008 School Discipline Wrap

I am reading all the cases related to students for the 2009 Yearbook of Education Law, so I thought I would wrap up some interesting school discipline decisions. I think you'll enjoy it because school discipline cases always have interesting fact patterns. 

Cases cited in this episode: (type cite into plol for case)

A.B. v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. 2008).
Price v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 855 N.Y.S.2d 530 (S.Ct. App. Div. NY 2008).
Brannum v. Overton County Sch. Bd., 516 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2008).
In re J.D., 655 S.E.2d 702 228 [Ed. Law Rep. 944] (Ga. App. 2007). 
Picone v. Bangor Area Sch. Dist., 936 A.2d 556 (C.C. Pa. 2007).
C.M.M. v. State, 983 So. 2d 704 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2008).
In re T.A.G., 663 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
R. D. S. v. State, 245 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2008).

Programming Update: 

I am taking a small vacation next week, so I'll leave you in Scott's capable hands.