Lab Gab: My New Show

Well, amongst friends back here at the blog, I'm happy to release my new show, Lab Gab. Okay, yes, dorky title but seriously, got a better idea? (And, seriously, I actually am a dork.) It's hard coming up with the name of shows. At least it is more original than what I did here at the blog, EdjuristTV. 

Anyway, as some of you know, I have been devoting a lot of time lately to a new project here at the COE called P20. Actually, it's called the Kentucky P20 Innovation Lab: A Partnership for Next Generation Learning. You can read more about it here. I think my official title is the Director of the Technology Leadership Lab, but I can't be sure yet. Chances are pretty high this is going to get me fired (anyone need a school law guy with tech skills, keep me in mind!) but it's fun, I think it can help, and we only live once so I'm doing it. Hopefully the twins will be at least a couple years old before the whole thing officially fails and they run me out of Kentucky on a rail, so moving won't be so hard on them and they'll never know the shame their daddy had in the Commonwealth. (Kidding, of course, you Kentucky folks -- don't be so serious!). 

So, as part of P20 we are working with the Kentucky Department of Education on developing a new learning platform using the iTunes U format. Lot's of universities have developed this kind of platform, but P12 is just starting to get into it and Kentucky will be a leader on this front. But, the new platform is going to need a content stream and I had been thinking of starting a new show lately anyway, so I thought I would take advantage of this fortuitous happenstance. I did include a legal component (called "Let's get Legal with It"

So, without further ado .... I present Episode 1 of Lab Gab. 

Risking even further embarrassment, I'd be interested in your thoughts. Good, bad, otherwise. It'll be a weekly thing, so you'll have to endure more of it at least until I generate a substantial audience of it's own.

If you are really weird and happen to like it, you can subscribe to the show via iTunes, miro, channels, or just simple old rss (show page) or rss (Lab Gab blog and comments).  

Aren't we living in fun times? When a professor can thoroughly embarrass himself to the whole world so cheaply?

School Funding: Where Does Your State Rank?

Education Week's "Quality Counts" publication includes, every year, a chart "grading" the nation's school systems based on several funding factors, including total spending, weighted spending, and equality in resource distribution.  The chart is here.  I find it particularly interesting that states which have experienced school finance litigation ending with a dismissal or judgment in favor of the state are fairly evenly distributed throughout the list.  I also find it interesting that most of the states at the very bottom have not experienced any school finance litigation at all. 

The Long-Awaited Connecticut School Finance Decision

I'll have more to say on this later, but for those of you who remember that the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the state's school finance adequacy case nearly two years ago, the court issued its decision Monday. 

In Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, the court ruled that the issue of whether education funding legislation in Connecticut makes "suitable provision" for education is justiciable.  The Connecticut Constitution's Education Clause provides, "There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state.  The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation."  Conn. Const. art. 8, sec. 1.  

The court first determined that the terms "elementary," "secondary," and "schools" are "ambiguous."  Slip. Op. at 20.  Then, the court held that the word "appropriate" explicitly called for judicial involvement.  Next, extending, by negative implication, the dissenting opinion of one of the justices in the Horton equity case, the court held that the education clause, despite its minimalistic terms, contains "substantive content."  Slip. Op. at 22.  Then, based on the testimony of the "principal draftsman" of the education clause that he introduced the provision to signify the importance of education in the state, the court held that, despite the failure of this draftsman to include terms of quality in the text, his own personal opinions about education should "inform our construction."  Slip. Op. at 28. 

Next, after reviewing the decisions of selected sister states and several public policy considerations, the court held that the constitutional text above, along with all of these considerations, guaranteed the children of Connecticut with an education "suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens"; that such an education should "prepare students to progress to higher education institutions, or to obtain productive employment"; and that such an education includes four "essential features" (borrowed verbatim from the first Campaign decision in New York): (1) minimally adequate physical facilities; (2) minimally adequate instrumentalities of learning; (3) minimally adequate teaching and curricular offerings; and (4) sufficient personnel adequately trained to teach the subjects.  Slip. Op. at 36-37. 

Finally, the court made two defendant-friendly holdings that could limit the reach of its opinion on remand.  First, adopting again the reasoning of the Campaign I court in New York (reasoning which the Campaign II court arguably repudiated), the Connecticut court held that the plaintiffs would have to establish a causal link between any established inadequacies and legislative action.  Second, in footnote 59 on the opinion, the court adopted a form of a "rational basis" test as a way of determinining constitutionality on remand: Speaking of the legislature and education board, the court stated: "So long as those authorities prescribe and implement a program of instruction rationally calculated to enforce the constitutional right to a minimally adequate education as set forth herein, then the judiciary should stay its hand." 

The opinion is long and somewhat convoluted, but it is not as earth-shattering as it may appear on first glance.  I see this as potentially one more state (after Texas, Indiana, Missouri, Oregon, and Colorado recently) which has held the education clause justiciable, but has imposed a very lenient standard of review.  Considering the language regarding the causal link (nearly impossible to establish) and the footnote calling for rational basis review, this case may prove to be expensive and fruitless on remand. 

The Quick Death of Paper Academic Journals?

Received word today that we are considering cutting subscriptions of around 50 education journals. Since Kentucky is still in a relatively moderate financial position, I have to imagine that if we are cutting library budgets, most other states are as well. How will most paper journals cope with this massive drop in support from public libraries? Well, they might have to cut their print editions, even though they have historically tied the print edition to the electronic edition. This article sums it up nicely:

Once given an either-or choice of print or digital, ACS subscribers made their preference clear. "We saw the purchasing market, starting with the institutional libraries, canceling print to such an extent that, when we got through the last renewal season, it was obvious that many of our journals have fallen below the threshold where you could practically consider printing them as a logical choice, much less an economic choice," Nordin said. "Some journals are printed twice a week, they're hundreds of pages, they include four-color graphics. The economics of print no longer worked."

Could the death be a quick one? I think it is possible that the vast majority of academic journals in 5-10 years will be electronic only. Because governmental budgets are typically behind the broader economy, the downturn in the economy over the past few years has only manifested itself substantially in this fiscal year and for the next few. With these budget cuts, I think paper journals are going to suffer especially badly. They are expensive to purchase and they are expensive to bind. They are also expensive to store taking up space that could be devoted to other things, like computer workstations. They are just cost prohibitive in this economic environment and I think the real possibility exists that once we start rolling down this hill, the decline could be quick. Without those institutional subscriptions to subsidize the printing costs, journals may be forced to quickly respond by going to electronic publication only. 

What does this mean? I don't know. Maybe not all that much. When is the last time you went to the library and sorted through the stacks to find a print edition of a journal?  

This Space for Sale - Captive Audience Included

Today there is an AP story out about advertising on school buses to help schools make up budget deficits. 

Washington lawmakers considered the idea of school bus advertising this year, and the concept is also being tossed around in Ohio, New Jersey and Utah. About half a dozen states already allow bus advertising — including Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Tennessee and Texas.

I'll keep this simple - this is gross and we need to avoid it. The commercialization of schools has always been a slippery slope that we must be vigilant against. The captive, impressionable audience that schools offer is so tantalizing to capital driven business interests that if we give them an inch, they'll take a foot or more.

I don't blame the superintendents that have utilized this method to get more revenue, but state departments or legislatures that authorize this type of activity are highly suspect. Superintendents will always push the envelope of entrepreneurship - but state offices must be responsible for the bounds of acceptability and ensure that we are treating our impressionable youth with caution - lest capitalism commoditize our kids on the government's watch. 

Edjurist TV: 2009 Student Expression Cases

It's been a while since I have posted an episode of Edjurist TV, so I was happy to get back behind the camera. Today, I recap the 2009 student expression cases in the United States that I reviewed for the 2010 Yearbook of Education Law, available at ELA. You can see the archive of EdjuristTV episodes, or always get my latest delivered automatically via iTunes. 

The cases cited in this video:

Morgan v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 589 F.3d 740 [251 Ed. Law Rep. 551] (5th Cir. 2009).

Palmer v. Waxahachie Indep. Sch. Dist., 579 F.3d 502 [248 Ed. Law Rep. 579] (5th Cir. 2009).

A.M. v. Cash, 585 F.3d 214 [250 Ed. Law Rep. 56] (5th Cir. 2009). 

B.W.A. v. Farmington R-7 Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 734 [241 Ed. Law Rep. 41] (8th Cir. 2009).

Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. #204 Bd. of Educ., 619 F.Supp.2d 517 [246 Ed. Law  Rep. 80] (N.D. Ill. 2007). 

Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554 [244 Ed. Law Rep. 1045] (9th Cir. 2009). 

Brown v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., 605 F.Supp.2d 788 [ 244 Ed. Law Rep. 47] (S.D. W.V., 2009).

Barnett v. Tipton County Bd. of Educ., 601 F.Supp.2d 980 [243 Ed. Law Rep. 269] ((W.D. Tenn. 2009).

Doninger v. Niehoff, 594 F.Supp.2d 211 [241 Ed. Law Rep. 686] (D. Conn. 2009).

Dempsey v. Alston, 966 A.2d 1 [242 Ed. Law Rep. 256] (N.J. App. 2009). 

Miller v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 588 F.Supp.2d 606 [240 Ed. Law Rep. 218] (E.D. Penn. 2008). 

Setback for Socioeconomic Diversity Plans

Socioeconomic integration, which for some time was positioned as a race-neutral option that could achieve some level of school diversity without triggering strict judicial scrutiny, took a significant hit a couple weeks ago.  In Wake County (Raleigh), North Carolina – one of the largest district to utilize an assignment plan aimed at socioeconomic integration – the school board voted 5-4 to abandon the plan in favor of a neighborhood schools assignment plan. 

The arguments for and against socioeconomic integration are not especially novel, but they are worth evaluating in order to place the developments in Wake County in a broader context.

Why Socioeconomic Integration?  There are two main arguments in favor of socioeconomic integration plans, one practical and one policy.  The practical argument is that in a world where race-conscious school assignments are strongly discouraged if not forbidden, socioeconomic integration assignment plans have the advantage of removing the likelihood of a plan being struck down as unconstitutionally considering race.  Thus, these plans are far more likely to be upheld than a racial integration plan (at least for school districts that are not under court ordered desegregation plans) and given the unfortunate correlation between race and socioeconomic status, they may still provide some level of racial integration as well, albeit in a race-neutral way.

Second, the policy argument for student assignment aimed at socioeconomic integration is based upon the multitudes of data that high concentrations of poor students do not typically lead to strong schools.  Socioeconomic integration, then, can eliminate schools with such high concentrations of poor students by spreading students of all socioeconomic backgrounds across the district. 

Some go so far as to say socioeconomic integration is even better educational policy than racial integration since it is typically high concentrations of poverty – even more so than high concentrations of minority students – that correlate with poor school performance.  Socioeconomic integration, the argument goes, is better targeted at the problem than is racial integration – and the fact that it is less constitutionally suspect is a bonus on top of that.

Why Not Socioeconomic Integration?  Socioeconomic integration – like all well-meaning education reform ideas – has been criticized as being both too much and not enough.  On the “not enough” side, advocates of racial integration point out that 1) socioeconomic integration does not actually result in a significant level of racial integration; and 2) focusing exclusively on economics discounts the significant role race continues to play in educational opportunity.  They see it as a constitutionally safe solution that will not effectively address the problem of racial disparities in the education system.

In the “too much” camp, critics argue, including those at work in Wake County, focus on the displacement of students resulting from achieving a requisite level of socioeconomic diversity by transporting students across a metropolitan area.  This argument mimics those made against busing for racial diversity and feeds into advocacy for neighborhood schools.  Underlying the argument is the sense that educational quality must be being sacrificed somewhere for the sake of diversity – the most likely losers, it is assumed, are those who had something to lose in the first place: students from wealthier socioeconomic backgrounds.

In Wake County, the neighborhood schools argument seems to have carried the day.  This development is obviously a setback for advocates of school diversity (racial or socioeconomic), but the lesson for diversity advocates is clear and has been for some time: unless the case is sufficiently made that a diversity plan is enacted for an educational benefit for all students (i.e., not diversity for the sake of diversity), then the backlash from those who do not see the personal value to their children will always threaten to swallow good intentions and even good policy.  This happened in the implementation of desegregation following Brown v. Board of Education.  It happened in the aftermath of race-conscious affirmative action programs at the university and grad school level.  And it has now happened with a race-neutral socioeconomic integration plan.

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.

So you missed RttT? A Pep Talk

So, just announced minutes ago were the finalists for Race to the Top (announced on Twitter by @EdPressSec). Here's Arne:

So, Kentucky (surprisingly I think) is in. I started writing this post 1/2 hour before the announcement thinking Kentucky would be out and I would need to sooth some feelings around here. But, while I am happy Kentucky is still in the running, I do still want to sooth the feelings of folks in the other states that applied and missed. So, here we go:  

1. Don't forget we are living in extraordinary times when the cost of innovation has never been lower. It is easier to collaborate and disseminate now, than at any time in recorded history - meaning the price of the tools that you need to make change in your states is probably close to zero. The cost of the announcement above? Zero. Keep that in mind. 
2. Many of the changes we need in schools, don't cost a lot. It doesn't cost much to let teachers be more creative. It doesn't cost much to let students use their cell phones as learning tools. It doesn't cost much to get your classroom content in the kids home via Moodle. It doesn't cost much to personalize learning for kids. We think these things cost a lot and they do, but those costs are not monetary costs, they are time and effort costs. And, while I wish we could pay our teachers more too, most teachers are wonderful human beings who would put in that time and effort if our leaders help them in doing so.   
3. Make your own resources (money, time, & effort)! You need $500 for some new software? Ask your parents. Ask your local grocery store. Hell, ask us at universities! But, when you are asking them, don't just ask and walk away. Involve these people! Let them help run it. Let them talk to the kids. It's amazing how much people are willing to help if you involve them as collaborators (reference point #1). Oftentimes, they don't even want to put their name on it, they just want to feel like they are making a difference.    
4. Be a leader. I'm convinced the problem in most states is that there are truly not enough real leaders. The kind that understand where real value lies (which is almost always not in the bottom line). If your reading this blog, you know something about technology. That's probably at least 50% more than most of our educators out there. Start with that. Start by organizing a few fellow teachers or principals and talking about whether or not a blog could be useful in a classroom. And, let it roll from there. Step up to the plate people. We need you. And for the love of God, please don't be afraid to fail.     
5. Help your departments try again. I'm one of those wacky people out there that actually like state departments of education. I worked with them my whole career and those people are good people. But, they function in very tight political spaces. They are almost always overworked. Almost always overwhelmed. So, they need help. Not in terms of writing the document (although they always welcome edits), but they need ideas. They need projects. They need people that can step up and lead a state effort. They need people that can help get the signatures from all the districts in the state. And parents groups. And teacher groups. And business groups. That's just a heck of a lot of work, and they need help. So, want more money for your state? Go help get it yourself. 
6. Just do it. Just freaking go do it. Got an idea? Just do it. You don't need approval. You don't need authorization. You don't need money. You don't need a policy written (remember, that's coming from a lawyer). Find a way. There is always a way. Yes, maybe you have to sit in a board meeting and explain your plan. Yes, maybe some won't like it. Who cares? Who freaking cares? I tell people around here I don't care about tenure. They look at me funny and think I don't mean it. But, I do. I do not want to spend my life worrying about bureaucracy. I'm going to spend it doing what I love to do, whether or not that meshes with my institution matters little to me as there are a lot of institutions and not a lot of people who do what I do. If you are bringing value to the table, there will always be a demand for you. So, your focus should be on bringing value to the table, not on pleasing your institution. In other words, just freaking do it. The rest will take care of itself.   

So, that's it. That's my pep talk. It was a rough day for education in at least 1/2 the states today, but there is always opportunity in adversity. If it winds up that missing out on Race to the Top causes even a few of you in your state to finally decide to lay it totally on the line and go after the change you visualize, then the better result was missing it. It's not about the money, it's about the kids. And, with all the technology and tools in today's world, it's easier than ever to help them. 

Would Teachers Read the Law If It Was Available?

Listened to a great podcast from the Berkman Center on open access law. Specifically, it was an interview with Carl Malamud, of public.resource.org fame, on his and other efforts to open up the law. They have a series of upcoming discussions at the nation's top law schools to work on this issue and he will be addressing Congress on the issue in the near future. 

Anyway, one of the main points Carl gave for people opposing open access efforts on the part of the government is that the public won't read the law anyway, and so it is not worth the cost to the government to put it out there. Better to let private companies (West, Lexis) pick up that cost and then charge a fee only to those people that really need access and thus are willing to pay (collectively over 10 billion dollars annually). Now, technologists like me usually scoff at such suggestions, but in this case I want to pause to give it a bit more thought, and specifically, to see whether you think teachers would use the law (statutes, cases, regulations, board policies, handbooks, 100% of everything) if it were available? And, if they were to read it, how would they use it? 

I personally have very mixed feelings on this having taught teachers and principals how to use the law for the past few years, but I am much more interested in your thoughts.