A More Benign Use of the Spending Power

Is it just me or is anyone else sort of liking the Obama Administration's usage of the spending power in education. Now, granted, I sort of dislike any use of the spending power related to schools, but compared to the flashy, demanding, annoying law that NCLB was with deadlines and sanctions and public fights between the Fed. and states, the usage of the stimulus money in the Race to the Top fund has been sort of benign (but perhaps no less effective in creating policy changes?).

We survived it.

Now, was that so bad ... 

It was dull (hello, not a campaign speech?), but I actually sort of liked it. I hope he does it every year and it becomes a tradition for all Presidents.  

The President's Speech to Students and the Craziness that Ensued

Okay ... approaching the edge of sanity today with the public outcry against the President's upcoming address to students returning to school. This whole thing, the politicization of this event by some, makes me a little sick to my stomach. He is tasked with making students do better, but is not allowed to simply ask them to do better. Perverse, no? If you don't want him trying to improve government, then you shouldn't have elected him to head the government. As it is, since the federal government spends $100 billion on education, I don't think it is wrong for the chief federal officer to address the recipients of those funds directly. In fact, I think it is a pretty cool, and potentially effective, idea. I am actually impressed at the President and his staff for even thinking of the idea. Who better to tell our underachieving African-American males to work hard in school?

But, so be it, the common trend I am seeing from administrators today is to a) either don't interrupt the schedule for it, or b) allow students to opt out. I am seeing some administrators on the various listservs I belong to requiring their students to see it - and I commend them for it - but they are the exception. The safe route here is to permit students to opt out. In fact, the new Commissioner here in KY has said that schools need to "provide alternatives." So, as long as you are providing an alternative (hello, study hall) to students or parents that are on the edge of the deep end, then you school administrators should be fine.

This, too, shall pass.

Should We Trust the Numbers? Good Question.

Iowa State is holding a symposium on Sept. 11 titled: Should We Trust the Numbers? A Workshop on Philosophy, Mathematics and Statistics in the Court of Law. What a just flat out awesome idea for a symposium. While the program is a bit philosophical for my tastes, the question nevertheless is extremely important and one that scholars across the country are wrestling with as more and more legal scholars are also being trained as researchers (ex: myself, Scott B., Neal, Scott M., Jon Becker, and that's just the tip of the educational iceberg that my readers are likely to know). What impact that mixing of traditional research with legal decision-making is likely to have is anyone's guess, but certainly one could argue that a very large percentage of the most important cases related to education in the last-half century have used research data to support the legal arguments (Brown v. Board, all the ed. finance cases, etc.). So, all of you Midwesterners that can make it to Ames, should attend and let's hope we see more of these types of formal discussions in the future.

The Louisiana Fall-Out

An outstanding new colleague of mine, Dr. Wayne Lewis (who blogs here on ed. policy - love to bring on these blogging faculty members!) brought me up to speed on the political fight that is going on in Louisiana right now between the State Superintendent of Schools and, well, just about everyone else. Today we hear that Gov. Jindal is being called in to try to mediate the situation.

First, this is what happens when you put a lawyer, who has not been a teacher, in a position like this. There are lots of lawyers out there that have also been teachers, so next time try one of them.

But, the point here is not lawyers in education positions, or even that the summer heat is flaring tempers in Louisiana, but for last few years I have watched Louisiana repeatedly go out on a limb. Just search Louisiana over there in the search box and see all the wild things that Louisiana was trying. Louisiana, through various political lines, has pushed its teachers pretty far and the byproduct of that kind of rapid change is someone's head on a platter. There is blood in the water now for Paul Pastorek, and he likely won't last much longer. There is always a price to be paid for change, for better or worse.

Detroit Inches Closer to Bankruptcy

Detroit Public Schools overseer is meeting with an ex-bankruptcy judge today to talk it over. My Chapter 9 background here. Was hoping we didn't need to use that. 

H/T Linda704 via Twitter

Bankrupt Schools - Implications

Until this year, I have never really heard of a school district going bankrupt. It's an extremely rare event. But, Detroit may be left no other option and several schools in California (2) are telling the state they simply cannot pay their bills anymore.

We don't hear about school bankruptcy normally for several reasons. Schools usually have rainy day funds, they usually compensate for lower budgets with cuts, and if everything else goes wrong the state may well bail them out. But, rainy day funds are exhausted. Staff and programs have already been cut to bare minimums. And, some states (California, Nevada, Florida, etc.) are in worse shape than the schools. In effect, there are no more fallback plans. Bankruptcy is real option.

So ... can schools, as public entities, go bankrupt? Yes - and here are some details:

Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for municipality bankruptcy, which under the definition expressly includes school districts. Not surprisingly, this provision was put in place during the Great Depression. But, use of this provision is very rare. Since its passage, it has been used less than 500 times. Compare that to the over a million Chapter 7 and 13 filings that are going to happen this year alone.

Here's the deal with Chapter 9, though. There are serious federalism problems when a federal court, acting under federal statutes, seeks to tell a state entity how to restructure its debt. There is far less flexibility than in personal or corporate bankruptcies for restructuring. For instance, schools can't just stop offering math. They can't sell off a division, like GM with Saturn. The federal bankruptcy judge can't tell the state to sell property. There is some flexibility with union contracts, but those are more procedural than substantive. In short, there is not a heck of a lot a court can do in these situations other than provide protection and negotiating power to municipal debtors against creditors - who, together, sort of have to work it out. If they don't, though, there is less protection for creditors against public debtors than against private debtors.

What happens is that after failure of good faith negotiations between the creditor and debtor, the debtor (school) must offer a restructuring plan to the court. Unlike other bankruptcies, the creditor is not permitted to offer a counter-restructuring plan (because we don't allow private entities to dictate public financial choices). The judge then reviews it for legality on several aspects and, if legal and not overly unfair to the creditor, will confirm it and the school district's debt will be discharged as articulated in their restructuring plan.

Really, what schools get here is time because bonds and other general debt do not have to be paid during the court proceedings, which could last a long time. And, while they probably can't just write off debt like under Chapter 7, the restructuring can put off payment of that debt for a while. The beauty is that schools don't really have to change all that much as long as they propose a plan that conforms with all the bankruptcy laws. If they do, federal judges and creditors are not in a strong position to deny that plan. So, there are certainly short-term financial benefits to filing.

The downside, though, is that school districts have credit ratings just like individuals (instead of numbers they use letters). This is for the bonds that schools get for buildings and repairs and whatnot. Of course, bankruptcy will absolutely destroy a credit rating and these schools will have serious trouble getting acceptable loans in the future. For instance, the damage was so bad to the 1991 bankruptcy of Richmond Unified School District in California that it was forced to change its name and it is still trying to get out from under millions of dollars of debt nearly 20 years later. Going down to a default credit rating will absolutely destroy a district's ability to obtain money.

So, as we see more and more school districts start to consider the nuclear option of bankruptcy, keep in mind the far reaching implications it will have on the kid's kids in that district. I would hate to have to be the school leader that pulls the trigger on one of these filings.

The Power of Pension Funds

As regular readers know, I have a little secret infatuation with teacher pension systems. I've posted on them several times, but this is one of the more recent ones.

Anyway, today the Indiana Teacher's Retirement System (which I know a lot about), with a couple other Indiana pension systems, stopped the Chrysler sale. Mark Walsh had it earlier and Justice Ginsburg issued the order. 

Now, this doesn't mean the sale won't go through. Nor does it really mean that only a pension system could have stopped it. Any number of plaintiffs could have stopped it - it just happens that it was pension systems. 

But, I feel it is a good corollary of just how powerful these pension systems are - they can literally shut down international commerce - bet you didn't know teachers were so powerful.  

NCSL Bill Tracking

One of the things I am going to try to do over the summer is provide links to data sources related to education law - and today is the first of those. 

The National Conference of State Legislators has a great education bill tracking database that they built last year. They seem to be doing a pretty nice job of catching all the bills and the history of those bills. But, the cool part is that you can sort by topic in a pretty detailed topical list. For instance a search of 2009 bullying bills yields this list, containing everything from technical changes to the law in Illinois to a fairly bold proposal by Alabama. Anyway, it could be a cool little tool that you would find useful. 

If Things Are Not Bad, They are Not Accurate

Check out this Columbus Dispatch story today. The author blatantly accuses the schools in Ohio of lying, or intentionally ignoring, incidents of sexual harassment in schools. 

I'm not an expert on Ohio sexual harassment, so I can't say one way or the other whether the data cited in this story is accurate. But, the point is that neither is this newspaper author - and she doesn't cite anyone that does seem to be an expert on Ohio school data reporting systems. 

The operating assumption here, and it is explicitly acknowledged in the article, is that kids are sexually harassing each other all over the place. Kids are probably exposing themselves everyday, fondling each other, forcing kisses on each other, raping each other. That is the clear modus operandi of all teenagers because they are "hormonally charged." To support these assumptions, she quotes a consultant who would benefit if such was the national perception. We must assume the worst, and that assumption must override any data ... because, well, we all know that schools and tennagers are bad, in all cases. 

What has happened to real education journalism? Was it ever even there in the first place? Look, if you think the numbers are cooked, do an investigation and get some real proof. Then you have a story - otherwise you have nothing. Speculation is for the editorial page ... keep it off of the education page. 

Gratis: Is Child Support a Payment?

Interesting case out of Pennsylvania (Velazquez v. East Stroudsburg Sch. Dist. - plol link) and I want to point it out because it is a great case of getting the right result ... and getting the right law. I love it when courts do that (and in appellate opinions it doesn't happen as often as you might think). 

Kid's mother and father were screwed up. Dad was in jail. Mom was running around the country. Grandma was left to take care of the kid. Kid got in a little trouble and the school sought to make the problem go away by making him a non-resident of the district. Penn's residency law stated that students whose parents live in the district are entitled to attend school in the district, or any other student who was living with someone that treated them as if they were their child gratis (free of charge). The school accepted the student just fine and didn't care until the student got in a little trouble. Then, after investigation, the school found out grandma had received like $1,900 in child support payments extremely intermittently and told the child he was ineligible to come to school there. Trial court sided with school - but the appellate court reversed (correctly in my opinion). Child support payments are not "payment" for keeping the kid ... they are money for the welfare of the child. The money is for the kid ... not for the grandma. Therefore, the grandma was not "being compensated" for taking care of the kid, thus outside of the gratis provision of the law. On top of that, it was $1,900 over the course of a year ... I am not even sure that qualifies as compensation for keeping a child anyway. The court also chided the school in saying the legislative intent was to prohibit district shopping, not to get rid of discipline problems. 

Anyway, right result. Right law. This case isn't going to change the world and outside of Jose and his grandma, no one is going to remember it in 10 years. But, cases like this are why I love the law and keeps my faith in the court system.    

South Carolina Political Fight Over Stimulus Gets Legal

The family and I have been enjoying our time at the beach here in South Carolina, but all we can hear about on the nightly news (while we are waiting on the weather report) is the various lawsuits filed for and against the Governor. Mark Sanford, a while back, claimed that he was going to reject the stimulus dollars. In particular he wants to reject $700 million, $350 million of which is for schools (he would like to take it to pay debt, but that doesn't seem to be part of the bargain from the feds). Other governors (Texas, Louisiana and Alabama) made similar stands, but largely backed down in the end. Not Sanford. He is sticking by it and has even filed a lawsuit against the South Carolina State Legislature to stop their efforts to force him to accept the money. Now, we get lawsuits from education advocates also. In particular the one from the South Carolina Association of School Administrators has been catching headlines, but there is also one from students and one for higher education. Pretty much everyone in the state seems for taking the money, except Sanford. I'll let you speculate as to why. The deadline to accept or reject is July 1. Photocredit: Jim Frazier

I was at Fort Sumpter yesterday and heard how South Carolina led another revolt against federal government policies ... which ultimately started the Civil War. I have spent most of this week at Charleston and learned that it is the 4th largest sea port for containers in the U.S. and that it has always been one of the Atlantic's most important harbor cities. But, if anything, Charleston strikes me as small. For a city nearly as old as Boston with a much warmer climate and nicer bay, it is amazing how few people live here. There are always a million reasons why some cities develop and some do not, but it would be naive to assume there is no connection between South Carolina's historical and contemporary conservative ideology and the lack of development in the state generally, and specifically in Charleston. Political actions have consequences, both in the short term and in the long run.

I am truely baffled how rejecting the stimulus dollars for schools can be seen as the right move.  

Can't Have it Both Ways School Resource Officers

I am growing more and more frustrated in how the courts are handling school resource officers. The courts seem to have no trouble concluding that school resource officers are more like school officials for purposes of getting under the reasonable suspicion standard of the 4th Amendment (searches and seizures). On the other hand, courts, such as this one in Florida, seem to have no problem still giving school resource officers all the protections traditionally afforded the police force. The Florida case even conceded the point that the resource officer was under the direction of school administrators, but still found a student guilty of the crime of battery of a law enforcement officer when he fought with the resource officer that stopped him in the hallway. How are students supposed to know how to treat these people? They discipline like principals, have the authority of school administrators, get the protections of school administrators, yet if you interact incorrectly with them, all the built-in protections we afford police in this country can come down on top of (and ruin) the student's life.

We absolutely need clarity from the courts on whether school resource officers are more like school employees or more like police. This having it both ways stuff (to the detriment of the students in all cases) has got to stop.

Closing Schools for Swine Flu - Would Businesses?

Schools are closing all over the U.S. because of the Swine Flu scare. Fort Worth entirely shut down for 10 days.  Schools are also closed in Chicago, California, Utah, Arizona, Austin, Houston, New York.

As of today, the Washington Post has 300 schools nationwide closed (up from 100 yesterday) based on Department of Education data. Thus, literally hundreds of thousands of students are not in school right now. Of course, that is only the United States, Mexico has shut down its school system entirely. 

The Department of Education has published guidance for school administrators. There is some good stuff in there and let me highlight a couple:

1. The health and safety of a community comes first. We can't lose sight of that. 
2. Monitor your illnesses in your school. Call parents, ask if they went to the doctor, what did the doctor say, etc. Just stay on top of it right now. 
3. Wash hands. We should be doing that all the time, but this is a good teaching opportunity about the importance of this basic step. Also, stress to your cleaning staff to pay special attention to places that students frequently touch like door handles. 
4. Check your districts to make sure there were no students in Mexico in the last month or so. But, if there were, not only do you need to be concerned about exposure, but you also need to make sure they are not bullied by other students. Even students of Mexican descent may be targeted, so keep on top of that. 
5. No masks. If a kid is sick, send them home. Don't have everyone in the school wearing masks. No one is learning anyway at that point so you might as well have them at home.   

But, the recommendation to close schools if someone in the community who may or may not have had any contact with schools goes too far in my opinion (disclaimer: I am not a medical doctor - I am a ed. law scholar, take my advice only for what it is worth, which isn't much). Back to my point, the school closure decision is excessive unless there is a true outbreak in the school community because once a decision to close a school is made, the DOE recommends keeping the school closed for at least 7 days. That is a major disruption on the level of Christmas break, and any good educator knows how much knowledge is lost during Christmas break. With it being the state exam time of year, such a break would absolutely devastate test scores (why we are in such a position to worry so much about test scores is a different post). Of course, test scores pale in comparison to the health and safety of our communities, but as of now we seem to be handling this pretty well in the United States.   

My concern is that the DOE is basing a lot of their decisions on the CDC, and the CDC seems to think closing schools is sort of a good idea in times like this. Children are labeled "amplification points" for viruses and the "social distancing" treatment theory starts with kids and distancing them from their peers - in the hopes that kids will keep families from interacting so much. If I were an M.D. and looking at this only from that perspective, absolutely schools should be closed. But I am an educator and I think it is reasonable to ask why are schools first on the list to close? Is what we are doing less important than business? In any downtown skyscraper, like the one my wife works in, thousands of people are also all breathing the same air, why is that less important to close?

Closing these hundreds and probably by next week thousands of schools is just going to be a major burden on our education system and really hurt kid's learning. I know the CDC is the expert here, but from their perspective recommending the closing of schools is an easy call, with little ramifications. I just think educators need to be especially vocal about the costs of closing schools right now because someone needs to be making an argument to keep these kids in school.   

AERA 09 Wrap

Yeah, didn't get a chance to blog nearly as much as I had planned. I just got back to Lexington, so let me write up a few thoughts before I forget them and I will try to return to several of them in the next couple weeks:

1. Went to a wonderful session with Bill Koski, Kevin Welner, Mike Rebell and Anne Newman. Take away (which I hope to come back to in more detail) ... we may be a couple of years away from a pretty substantial push for due process hearing officers for all education law disputes (like the ones we have in special education).
2. I am not really sure yet of the whole empirical legal scholarship stuff. I know that Scott B. is a big fan and Mario Torres is doing a lot in this area related to education as well as Michael Heise (see this blog), but I still have some reservations. Maybe I will do more on this later.
3. I got the chance to meet William Trent and some of his students doing work at the University of Illinois. Impressive stuff. 
4. Nothing is private in my field of education leadership. Nothing. It is too small a group and rumors spread like wildfire. Everything is either impressive as hell or the end of the world. There is too much overreaction to the yearly ups and downs of programs.
5. The UCEA Taskforce on Evaluating Leadership Preparation Programs is showing some promising signs. Hope to have more details on that upcoming. 
6. That said, the use of longitudinal data sets to tie school leadership to students, or alternatively their preparation programs, is still a long, long way away. Maybe more on that later too.
7. Prezi is a cool new tool. Check it out. Here is the one I used for the presentation off the paper I did with Jon Becker & Scott McLeod. Jon had the great idea to use it.

Overall, this was a great conference. I enjoyed Scott B.'s company (and may have even convinced him to come along again). There is a lot of room for good legal scholars related to education issues still (the proposal deadline is very early is you are interested). I am still very early in my career, so I am hopeful that by the end of my career we will see a lot more development in this critical area for education reform.

Wecasting or Liveblogging School Board Meetings

Wes Fryer liveblogged and UStreamed a school board meeting last week and wondered a little about the legal implications thereof.

Short answer: Yes, you probably can video record or liveblog school board meetings unless someone tells you not to because it is going to disrupt the meeting or a local rule exists prohibiting recording.

Long answer: Okay, I am going to cheat here and let the Citizen's Media Law Project do it for me. Also check out their state specific rules.

Let me just add to the long answer that FERPA and other privacy issues could potentially come into play in schools more frequently than other arenas. School boards should be going into closed sessions for these issues anyway, but if you notice them making a mistake and talking about private issues in public, you may want to help them out and keep the student's or teacher's information off the airwaves, or in this case the "series of tubes." Otherwise, I think the long answer works just as well for school board meetings as it does for Congressional Hearings.

Practically, the liveblogging I don't think will ever be a problem. Public officals are becoming comfortable enough with folks typing away on laptops that I don't think that would ever be a disruption. The video recording could be a disruption, but the less of an issue you make it, the better. Wes' plan to record with a camera phone I think was good - it doesn't really get in the way of anything. Now, if you brought in three extension cords, lighting, an overhead mike, etc... then it is likely going to be a disruption. Also, practically, it is probably not worth annoying board members and being as polite as possible. Asking ahead of time is probably a good idea, but have a fallback plan in case they say no to the initial request.

One of the commenters in Wes' liveblog noted that he would like to see a trend emerge of webcasting school board meetings and I also think that would be a good idea. For instance, Wes had a viewer from New Zealand watching that central Oklahoma school board meeting. That's just cool - and probably a good thing for our democracy.

The Interesting South Carolina Rejection

I find this one very interesting. If you haven't heard, there is a growing controversy in South Carolina because Governor Mark Sanford's refusal of some of the Stiumlus money. Not just any Stimulus money, but specifically $700 million for K-12 and higher education. Here is the NPR Story. So, of course, schools are getting restless and teachers have even begun to pubically rally in Columbia. There is lots of speculation out there that he is doing it to prepare for a presidental run, but it is not just that he is doing it ... it is HOW he is doing it. Listen to this:

You can judge for yourself, and I would love to hear your comments especially from my cohort of S.C. readers, but I like the clear articulation of positions here. Gov. Sanford is willing to publically say that he supports fiscally harming kids in the short term in the hopes that they are fiscally better off in the long term. Whether or not you support this position, and I probably don't given that a good friend of mine is a teacher at S.C. State, the directness and clarity of the position is laudable. (Of course, that kind of clarity and directness is ususally what gets your thrown out of office, too).   

Coaches, Calipari Edition

So, yes, we hired Jon Calipari. For 2.9 million a year, plus a slew of benefits (cars, tickets, country club membership, camp profits, etc). Here is his employment contract, it is one of the more interesting I have ever read (who gets 3 million for wearing the right pair of shoes?). 

So, lots of people around the campus asked me what I thought about it (and why I had not posted yet - the blog is becoming more popular around here!), and my response is that I am mixed.

I like winning. My wife can tell you that I really get into the games and I am quickly becoming one of those crazed Kentucky fans that everyone talks about. On the other hand, as I have said earlier, I have serious legal reservations about schools being responsible for sports. And, on top of all that, I have concerns about money and priorities at the place that writes my checks. 

So, first, I don't have a problem with the money. Any academic department here would love to put that to good use, but the fact is that sports here at UK pays for itself and has money to spare, which winds up benefiting academics. The SEC and ESPN have a 2.25 billion dollar TV deal. Forbes ranked us #2 (to the Tar Heels) in the value of our basketball team and it said we have an operating income of 16 million dollars. Given our likely investment in a new arena, even that number is going to balloon in the coming years. So, it is not a money issue. Sports for UK is a financially profitable enterprise and that doesn't even count the value of having millions of kids in Kentucky and the nation wearing UK gear and helping us advertise our school. Sports benefit UK and winning helps in that regard. So, pay the man that runs the show (and it is a show ... pure entertainment ... UK basketball IS Kentucky's professional franchise). 

I also don't have a liability problem with this. Kids that get into big time college basketball know what they are doing and they know the risks. Also, although students do get hurt playing sports at UK, we have plenty of money to cover those risks.  

However, I do have a slight problem with the attention we pay to sports, though. We at the College of Ed. are in a Dean search right now (I am excited about our candidates) and the President of the University doesn't play much of a role as it is mostly handled out of the Provost's office. The Law School was also in a Dean search this year. The Dean of the College of Law and the College of Education at the flagship institution are incredibly important positions to the Commonwealth. These people are policymakers and their decisions affect everyone's future in the Commonwealth. We are literally educating governors in both of our Colleges (law)(education), yet these positions receive so much less attention. There are not reporters covering the candidate's front door to watch for someone to leave the house, for instance. And, it is not just that we pay less attention, it is also that we just flat pay less, period. The Dean of the College of Education oversees a 15 million dollar budget and the Dean of the College of Law oversees an 8 million dollar budget, yet these folks make only around $200,000 because there are no Nike contracts or ESPN deals. These people are just engaged in the hard work of actually preparing Kentucky's future and although there might not be television or corporate sponsors, one would think that our leadership would recognize this and commit to personally overseeing who fills those positions.   

This is sort of where I think we are missing the boat here.  What message are you sending teenagers in Kentucky right now? Our states #1 academic institution ... the best minds we got ... its #1 priority is sports. Talk about sending the wrong message to kids. Kentucky needs more doctors and lawyers and teachers and innovators and entrepenures, but the State just told all the kids in Kentucky that basketball is where it's at. 

Coaches - Not My Favorite Aspect of Education

Well, I guess now is as good a time as any to make my dislike for school-employed coaches public. If you have had me in class, you are already aware of my feelings in this regard.

My university just fired our basketball coach, Billy Gillespie, perhaps you've heard. So, I went to a few games this year and I watch them on TV when I can and I understand that our basketball team is probably all the general public knows about the University of Kentucky. But, we spend a lot of money on it. They make a lot of money, but we also just throw money around somewhat recklessly. For instance, we are going to pay our coach six million just to fire him (although the university is going to spend a lot of legal dollars trying to pay less). The point is that sports are overshadowing academics at the University of Kentucky - and since I am on the academic side, I am not particularly fond of that.

But, it is not just the attention and money that shifts away from academics, sports are probably the most legally risky thing that schools do. Kids die ... quite frequently, actually. And when that happens, lawsuits ensue. Here is another one just from today, just in my local paper. Of course here in Kentucky earlier this year we had the case of Max Gilpin, which gained national attention when a student died playing football - and he wasn't the first to die in that district. The Gilpin case was the first, though, where the coach was charged with reckless homicide. I could cite lots of other examples too and that is not even accounting for all the sports injuries, which happen pretty much constantly.

Now, the counter argument is that the benefits of physical activity far outweigh the potential risk of injury or death. The problem is that coaches don't coach to make kids healthy ... they coach to win - frequently at all costs. When kids play they will get hurt, but the risk of getting injured or killed when they are exhausted or pushed to their limits increase substantially. Why is it that schools have to take on that risk? Why not cities? Why not private companies, like in professional sports?

From a legal perspective, employing coaches is just not a great idea. I understand that tradition dictates we do it and there are community benefits by rooting for the home team, but school administrators need to be very, very careful with their coaches and not get too enthralled with winning. Let's not take our eye off the ball, to use a sports analogy, by putting winning before our student's health.

Those dang open meetings.

School boards really struggle with the Open Meeting Laws (sometimes called Sunshine Laws). Like this one in Iowa (h/t S.M.).

Here is a compendium of every state's Open Meetings laws.  

Also, most states have a handbook on Open Meetings laws for new board members and most are online. NSBA has some of them here. 

This strikes me as a great opportunity for an instructional video in states. Law firms could really help themselves here because one of the first things a new board member would watch is an instructional video with your name on it. Just saying ...