We Need Innovative Bureaucrats

Gonna combine a couple ideas I have been toying around with in my head the last couple of days.

First, if you haven't heard already, the Drew MySpace trial concluded with a conviction. Its a mixed bag result, but the "jury did find there’s a crime based on accessing a Web site and not following its terms of service.” This woman should be punished, but there is little doubt in my mind that this is a terrible legal outcome which almost certainly must be overturned at some level. Because I think we have yet to hear the last of this case, I will save my full articulation for a later post. 

The second thought comes from Tom Friedman's new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded. Its a good book and I recommend reading it, but one idea that stood out to me was his reference to the idea of "revolutionary bureaucrats." In effect, those people that no one knows about but who nevertheless are the driving forces behind revolutionary adoption.

What occurred to me is that while revolutionary bureaucrats are certainly necessary to get the ball rolling, we need many fewer revolutionary bureaucrats than we need innovative bureaucrats.

So, let's use the MySpace case as a example. There are a lot of things that went wrong in this case and chief among them is the actual crime (yes crime - I think we can all agree on that whether or not we have a viable punishment mechanism in place). But, from a bureaucratic standpoint, what happened here is that technology and society got so far ahead of the bureaucracy that it simply could not cope and in many ways became worse than useless. The bureaucracy here is actually undermining itself because in trying to cope it is only exposing its fundamental weaknesses to the public - thus, it would be better off being useless.

So, we need to ask ourselves: why did the bureaucracy, the government, get so far behind? I think it is because we have a lack of innovative bureaucrats, not revolutionary bureaucrats. The people that put the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in place in 1986 were revolutionary bureaucrats. At a time when fewer than 10 Senators probably understood computers, someone nonetheless had the foresight and energy to get an anti-computer fraud and hacking law through Congress. That's great. But, here's the thing about revolutionaries ... they are always after the next revolution and rarely stay around for the implementation (here is a classic example). Who's left are the ordinary bureaucrats. What we need is for a bunch of those ordinary bureaucrats to become innovative. 

We could have predicted the MySpace case. There were lots of cases before this Drew case where MySpace terms of service were violated to effectuate bad personal results on other people. We knew this was a problem. But, we didn't do anything about it because all the people in positions of influence, or bureaucrats, either didn't know, didn't understand or didn't act if they did. Thus, when one of these cases finally did grab enough headlines for the world to care, we simply didn't have a bureaucratic mechanism for dealing with it. No one was innovative enough to notice, understand and articulate a policy on the thousands of previous cases. That's not a lack of revolution, that's a lack of innovation in our government.

Now, there are certainly benefits to a solely reactionary government, so I hope you don't take what I am saying lightly. Bureaucrats are incentivized to be reactionary and not innovative for a reason ... it makes for safer, albeit slower, government. The policy structures in place rarely reward innovation and almost always reward restraint. There is simply few incentives for bureaucrats (I use that word with full knowledge that I am one) to innovate.

If we had innovative bureaucrats, however, we could become a much more adaptable government without really changing our fundamental structures. Friedman talks about the U.S. "being China for a day" because China is not hindered by all the bureaucracy that is prevalent in the U.S. That's an interesting statement and a pretty clear recognition that in times of rapid change, such as now when you have 40 year old women anonymously driving teens to commit suicide using a technology that didn't exist 15 years ago, the safety of anti-innovation, slow bureaucratic structures is less important than the need for government to adapt to new realities quickly. We need to punish Lori Drew. It would be good for society if we did. But, our anti-innovation bureaucracy simply didn't keep up, even when there were clear signals that this was a problem.

I think our government needs to consider driving innovation not just in the private sector toward green technologies, biotech, infotech and all those other techs ... but we need to start actively driving innovation in the public sector as well. Lots of revolutionaries in this era have already arrived and some have even started to gray. We are transitioning from the initial stages of revolution, when a few people make radical changes, to a more lasting stage when the rest of us slowly adapt to those societal changes. We are in a period of adaptation, more than anything, but I fear our government is not yet there.

A Sad Twist, But a Feel Good Story

Kathy Cox, the Superintendent that WAS smarter than a 5th Grader, has filed for bankruptcy because her husband's construction business collapsed leaving the family with millions in liabilities. Cox intends to keep her promise, though, to donate the winnings to schools for disabled children. Good for her even in the face of personal financial hardship.

Superintendents and other school leaders are special, special people. Perhaps on this Thanksgiving we can all take a minute and thank a school leader for being that special person that helps our children.

Liveblogging ELA - Where is Internet Speech?

The last presentation at ELA I attended was a quite interesting one. A couple of researchers from the University of Cincinnati presented on a study of school principal's perceptions toward off-campus speech. Their findings will hopefully be out in an article soon, but the general idea was that place of the creation of the speech was a significant predictor of a principal's disciplinary reaction to the speech. In effect, if a student created the speech at home, principals were less likely to regulate whereas if the speech was created at school, the school was significantly more likely to regulate. Watch for an article soon that gives much greater detail on their findings. 

But, here is the thing. The "place" of the speech's creation actually matters very little in the legal analysis. The legal analysis is pretty much wholly concerned about the effects of the speech. Tinker, in particular, set up a student speech analysis regime that is wholly concerned about the effects of speech on the schools. This is why we are concerned with whether the speech's outcome will have a material and substantial disruption on the school environment. Now, this comes with some cavets. The Bethel and Hazelwood analysis IS concerned with the creation of the speech (not lewd, vulgar or offensive and not school sponsored, respectively). This can play into the off-campus speech analysis, but not nearly as much as the Tinker issues and I highly doubt that is what is accounting for the researcher's findings. 

This "place" issue is important because of the geographical effects of the Internet. When it comes to published speech, the Internet has gotten rid of geography in a lot of ways. Internet speech is neither here nor there, it is both. This blog post, for instance, is in San Antonio's airport right now where I am writing it, but it is just as much in Lexington or Cincinnati or your school or my school or a student's home. It is in all those places as soon as the server request transfers the data through the Internet to a computer (and with RSSing, that happens a lot without someone even intentionally sending a request). Thus, the effects of the speech (what Tinker is concerned with) can also be in all those places. So, using place as a determinate factor really doesn't make sense. The "nexus" test and the "disruption" test (if those are 2 separate things) only cares about the effects - not the creation - and since those are the two most important tests for off-campus speech, the researchers findings really are instructive that principals are not understanding the fundamental analysis at play here and are likely making mistakes in disciplining student speech. 

Anyway, it was excellent research and I look forward to reading the article on it.

Friday Snippets - ELA 08 Edition

Shorter edition this week as it is midnight already and I have 8:00 sessions tomorrow.

A California court declares a statute requiring sex-offenders to live at least 2,000 feet from a school or park unconstitutional. Interesting to see how this one plays out. It could have a big impact if it stands up on appeal.

Schools don't understand open records laws? - No kidding!

Great article on pushing the drug testing barriers in the NY Times.

I'm in Texas, so might as well link to another story on their evolution fight.

USAToday runs a bullying article.

New Jersey's Supreme Court commissions a fact finding investigation on the state's new plan to fund schools. New Jersey's Supreme Court is running their school system in a lot of ways and this is just more evidence of that.

You are going to see a lot more of this coming up in higher education.

A bill would require all public school students to wear uniforms in Nevada.

Not sure I agree with this article's premise on female teacher misconduct. I am not sure there is more of it, or that we just care more these days. Interesting idea though.

This is an encouraging article: Georgia is phasing OUT their graduation exam.

That's it for tonight folks. I will catch up with the ed. law blogosphere next week. But, let me recommend Mark Walsh's write up of my presentation at ELA earlier this week in the meantime. It has been a real pleasure to meet Mark here. He is a really nice guy and it is always nice to finally put a face and personal connection with the blogging conversations.

More liveblogging on ELA tomorrow.

Liveblogging ELA - "Cyber" issues

Was just in a very concerning session on off-campus speech and cyber-speech. Actually, it scared me a good deal. Some thoughts:

1. People are scared of this "Internet thing." Really scared. Administrators in this session suggested that (a) students don't understand that there are consequences to any of their actions these days, (b) an administrator said that we should get rid of all anonymous Internet content, (3) participants continually referred to the Internet as "cyberspace" -- as in someplace other than the world they live in. Clearly, we are a long way from simply accepting the Internet's continued existence.
2. T.K. Daniel made some great points about teachers and administrators not understanding what is going on with the Internet and not understanding how it could be used positively.
3. There is general acceptance that "cyber-bullying" is different from "bullying" generally. I disagree. Folks seem to think that it is fundamentally different because students somehow can now bully with their fingertips instead of their fists. Um, haven't students always been bullying with their fingertips? What about classroom notes. What about papers taped to the back of students? ... Folks, this is not different. Yes, there are differences in form, but no difference in substance.
4. I was surprised to hear a school district attorney suggest that he would like to give more freedoms to students on this issue. His point was that in a highly regulatory environment, schools are overwhelmed. He said he spends a lot of time contacting Facebook and asking them to take down webpages. That is a waste of school resources in some ways since whatever bullying or misbehavior the site was intended to convey has necessarily already been conveyed by the time the school hears about it. I thought that was a very good point and it was refreshing to hear a board lawyer looking at this rationally instead of reactionarily. 
5. "on" campus - "off" campus ... are those the best words we can use? Those words imply a world where geography matters, i.e., something is either or here or there, but not both. With ubiquitous worldwide publishing, geography is a pretty odd way to try to continue to define the limits of school authority. We need a new term for this issue.

Liveblogging ELA - Pre-Service Teacher Education

In a role-alike session for educational law professors now and the focus of this meeting is teaching pre-service teachers about the law. I want to record a few of the points that are being made now.

1. Once you get your foot in the door with a pre-service class on education law, the students will make it permanent because the demand is very high for this.
2. More research universities are pushing to do education law at the pre-service teacher level. Indiana has already made it work. Wisconsin, Penn State, BYU (and Kentucky) among others have instituted efforts to get pre-service teacher law.
3. We have to make it relevant for students.
4. Research by David Schimmel and Matt Militello has shown that the education law field is pretty universially in support of making a push to get pre-service teacher education on legal issues.
5. Lots of organizations can work together to get the law out there and create the demand.
6. They just brought up the NASSP thing. That was sort of cool. So I talked about that.
7. In the Fall issue of ELA notes Dave Schimmel writes about how to do this.
8. We need to share more about how everyone is doing this.

There are probably more points I missed, but the overall point is that everyone thinks we should be doing this and now the discussion is about HOW to do this, not IF we should do this. I think that is an important leap forward for us.

Education Law Research in a Cyberage

I'm at the Education Law Association conference in San Antonio and I just gave a presentation on Education Law Research in a Cyberage (slides below) with Kevin Brady, an education law professor at North Carolina State.

I'll hit some of the major points I made in my presentation, although not all because I plan to publish this in an article when I get some more research.

1. The Internet is ubiquitosly used for education law research. Even the older members of the education law field have highly adopted Internet-based research.
2. Of the members of the education law field, about 1/2 primarly used fee based sources for education law research and about 1/2 primarily use free resources.
3. Of the free resources, there is not dominate resources. There was great diversity in responses concerning which free resources people used the most.
4. Web 2.0 resources are changing how legal research is conducted. Sources like PreCYdent, Altlaw, and Public.Resource.org allow for a bottom up approach to providing educational law sources rather than the top down approach of Westlaw and Lexis. (More resources are on my Find Ed. Law Info page).
5. Blogs are becoming a major resource for information on education law. Check out my blogroll on the left. 
6. There is an equity issue for people on the education side of education law. Attorneys and law professors have nearly unlimited access to Westlaw and Lexis, the main legal information providers. People in schools of education do not have such access and can't afford the hundreds of dollars per month it takes to get access.
7. There are differences in the resource of first choice for professors (textbooks), attorneys (caselaw) and practitioners (google).

Anyway, those were some of our findings. We are just beginning this journey on education law research and we plan to add qualitiative elements to our research to get more specific detail on the challenges that people in the education law field are facing when it comes to obtaining information. On thing is certain, though. The way we find and process information is rapidly changing. We could not have given the presentation we gave today five years ago and the presentation we give five years from now will look nothing like the presentation we gave today. It is a fun time to be working in this field.

NASSP Principal's Online School Law Guide

Today The Edjurist is announcing a new relationship with The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). I was invited a couple months ago to join an effort to build an online school law guide for principals. Well, yesterday that effort officially went live and is now available. About half of the modules are currently complete and the rest will be completed shortly. To access the modules themselves you have to be a member of NASSP, but you can view the overview without being a member. Here is the video introduction Jon Becker and I made about the Online School Law Guide.

The Edjurist blog is an important part of this relationship because this will be the place where NASSP principals can go for continuing information on education law and it serves as a place where principals can engage in a discussion on legal issues that affect them. I have added a link to the Online School Law Guide to the sidebar, so feel free to click over any time and access the materials.

Does Privledging Male Teachers in Hiring Constitute Illegal Discrimination?

My sharp as a tack ed. law class asked me the other day whether the privledging of male teachers in hiring decisions in schools constitutes discrimination. The short answer here is yes, it does. But, let's break it down a little. 

It is certainly no secret that education has a lack of male teachers, and doesn't really know what to do about it as my friend Shaun Johnson notes. Less than 10 percent of elementary school teachers are male, according to the NEA in 2003. It is also no secret that men are privileged in hiring decisions by principals simply because they are men. When I was coming up the teaching ranks I was frequently told that "I would have no problem finding a job because I was a man and we needed more male English teachers." Even when I was hired in a public high school I was explicitly told that "It was nice I was a man because I could relate more to the students" (I taught a lot of behavior challenged boys). So, it is out there and I don't think anyone that's been in the schools would seriously dispute that.

So, let's look at the underlying legal issues here. First, think about discrimination broadly. The question is not whether there is discrimination (there always is some form of discrimination conceptualized broadly), but whether that discrimination is illegal. We discriminate all the time, but usually all we need is a rational reason to do so. We discriminate by college attended, for instance. We discriminate by grade point average. That's fine. The college you go to or the GPA you earn are not protected classes and thus all we need is a rational reason to discriminate using those reasons under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. But, sex is a protected class in America under Title VII. In fact, here is the language:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 via kwout

So, when you have a protected class at stake, such as sex, we have a different test to determine whether the discrimination is illegal. Specially we ask whether there is a compelling reason to discriminate and whether that discrimination is narrowly tailored. Let's try this test out: Who should supervise the girl's locker room? There is a compelling case to be made that only a female teacher should do so. If we discriminately hire only female teachers to teach girl's P.E., but limit ourselves only to P.E. the courts are going to say that is fine because there is 1) a compelling reason to discriminate and 2) the policy was narrowly tailored. Okay, see how that works? Well, let's play the same game with male elementary teachers. Is there a compelling interest to hire male teachers? Is there a reason that only a man should teach second graders? No. Is there some potential benefit? Absolutely. But does that benefit rise to the level of a compelling interest? Absolutely not. Thus, if you are using sex, namely maleness, as a basis in your hiring decisions, you are illegally discriminating against female candidates.

So, there is the law behind this and why it is illegal to base your typical hiring decisions for teaching positions on maleness. There is no affirmative action for male teachers. If you have a more qualified female candidate and you privledge the less qualified male candidate (even though you have good intentions), you could be successfully sued.

So, what to do about this? Well, here are a few suggestions, although I am sure there are lots more. 

1. Take advantage of the men you do have. When I was teaching, because there were few men in the school, I was asked to take boys aside from time to time. I did it and it was fine with me.
2. Support your female teachers. There is a difference in levels of authority associated with different sexes and men naturally get more authority associated to them by young boys - it is unfortunately still part of our culture. But, that doesn't mean that only men can be authority figures - women can also and administrators can help by making sure they themselves are associating just as much authority in their female teachers. Kids pick up on these things.
3. A dad's club. Listen to Peg Tyre talk about it and it makes a lot of sense to get more of a male presence in the school.
4. Use coach's to your advantage. There is a lot of discrimination in sports, moreso than perhaps any other area in the schools. In fact, we had to pass a whole nother law about that. But, the fact remains that there are men accessible to schools in the coaching ranks. Volunteer dads, assistant coaches, referees ... these men can be allies for schools and help convey a consistent message with the administration. 
5. Tap into male dominated fields. Invite an engineer to your science class or the local newspaper man to your English class. Most business folks are happy to give back to the schools.
6. Father - Son activites. Title IX makes a specific exception for these activities, although you need to do mother-daughter activities as well.

Anyway, I am sure there are lots more, but those are just a few from the top of my head. The point is there are legal ways to increase the male presence in your schools. But, basing hiring decisions on maleness and hiring less qualified male candidates for teaching positions is illegal.

The Drew Cyberbullying Case Goes to Trial

The trial of Lori Drew for Cyberbullying starts today. This case has got a lot of attention nationally, so it bears watching. 

Here is the quick and dirty: An older woman and associates created a fake MySpace account in which they portray a young man. The young man then woos Megan Meier and after a relationship is established the fictitious boy then proceeds to shun her including a message stating the world would be better off without Megan. Megan, already having some emotional problems, hangs herself in her bedroom. 

The authorities, struggling to find something with which to charge Drew, the instigator, finally settle on charging her with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - which was meant as a law against computer hackers. The charge rests on the theory that Drew knowingly falsified a MySpace account in violation of MySpace's terms of use agreement. There has been a lot of attention and criticism of this novel use of that law. Additionally, the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress tort is at issue here as it must be proved to constitute a violation of the laws of a state, a necessary requirement under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charge.  

According to news reports, the Judge, out of LA because that is where the MySpace servers were, has come close to dimissing the case several times but finally decided to let the case go to trial. Now that it is at trial, and the suicide is included in the evidence, I wouldn't be surprised to see the jury convict Drew of something, even if it is a lesser misdemeanor.

Needless to say, whatever the outcome here this case will probably be appealed. But, in the meantime, watch for the ruling of this case to come down in the next week or so because either way it will set some pretty important cyberbullying precedent. I may even try to get a cyberbullying expert to blog on the case here. 

Few Positions for Ed. Law Professors

It's a Monday in the heart of the academic job season. The number of leadership positions posted at the Chronicle today? Zero.*

On a normal Monday in November the past few years I would say there would be at least 10-15 postings if not more. But, this is not a normal year. The academic job market is down substantially across the entire ed. leadership field -- a field which has been one of the hottest in all of education for a long time. I think it is a combination of the economic circumstances + the weakening of the leadership field in general (things like this) that account for the drastic decrease. This has of course translated into a low number of positions available for ed. law faculty across the country. I am sure I missed some, but I think I have the majority at my job board and while it may look like a lot, when you consider the different specialties and the different ranks, any given potential ed. law professor is probably looking at around 2-3 jobs that mentioned law as a desired expertise to choose from in total across the country. Now, of course, there are more positions that don't specifically articulate law as the expertise area that still hire law-type people, but nevertheless, there are still many fewer jobs this year for education law specialists.

I don't have historical data to determine whether this is an anamoly or a trend. My feeling is that it is a little of both. This is a particularly bad year, but also in general the number of research positions in colleges of education and in particular departments of education leadership is declining. I will try to keep an eye on it the next few years to get more of a sense of the trends. 

But, anyway, tough year to be on the market. Looks like everything that is going to be posted, is posted, and what's there is just not very enticing. Good luck to anyone on the market this year.

*UPDATE: Some positions have posted now. The Chronicle is apparently behind as their positions usually post at 1 am. Nevertheless, the point of the post remains the same.

Friday Snippets: 12/14/08 - Weddings on my mind.

The majority of the education news stories around the country this week were on the economic crisis and how that is hurting schools. Folks, everyone is hurting and everyone is looking for ways to save money. That means reduced programs, capital projects on hold, and a lack of filling positions. NY is even going to reduce their school bus routes. Meanwhile California says no more bake sales (now what are they supposed to do?) -- That is just where we are at now as schools begin to shape their budgets for next year. If things are looking this bad now, they will look even worse in the Spring when districts actually release their budgets. Settle in. This is going to get worse before it gets better for schools. 

In the future, we are going to see more legal action on obesity. The research is starting to build. 

More good energy incentives for schools to conserve. I like what I am seeing on this front. 

A Native Hawaiian admissions policy is being challenged as against federal law. Proof the Civil Rights laws are more than just about African Americans with regard to race and ethnicity.  

University of Illinois students have taken their mascot into their own hands. 

One more thing for our school administrators to worry about ... insecticide use laws. 

Louisiana's conservative movement is now heading to higher education. Outputs, people, Outputs! But, the union is beginning to fight back - at least what's left of it. 

A New Jersey court rules that student cars can be searched without a warrant. 

Ohio is getting closer to promised funding reform. 

Around the Blogosphere:

Mitchell R. points us to 1) D.C. making an effort to eliminate tenure (in your dreams) and 2) a drug using student seeking to be classified  under IDEA.  

Mark Walsh, who I am looking forward to meeting next week at ELA, posts his Ed. Week story about the crazy Utah Monument case. I agree with Mark that it is a fun one. He also has the Morse settlement. 

Jim Gerl continues in his series on whether court decisions affect special education much (um, they absolutely do!). 

Miguel Guhlin & Wesley Fryer post about fair use of videos and documents in response to the Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Media Literacy Education. 

BoardBuzz asks whether education is becoming post-racial. 

Secretary Spellings if blogging at Eduwonk. Good for her, its nice to see her making an effort to communicate with this increasingly powerful conversation going on in the blogosphere. 

For your Friday Fun:  In honor of my sister whose wedding shower is this weekend back in Illinois ... don't let it drive you crazy, don't get too bossy, but remember, it could always be worse. 

Adventures in Facebook

The stories just keep on coming, but here is a particularly entertaining one out of Charlotte courtesy of my fabulous colleague Beth Rous. Seems teachers just can't understand that Facebook is a public space.

Superintendent Peter Gorman has recommended firing a teacher who listed “teaching chitlins in the ghetto of Charlotte” as one of her activities and drinking as one of her hobbies.

In her “About Me” section she wrote: “I am teaching in the most ghetto school in Charlotte.”

... the pages Campbell submitted included photos of female teachers in sexually suggestive poses and a black male teacher who listed “Chillin wit my n---as!!!” as an activity and had a suggestive exchange with a female “Facebook friend” accompanying a shirtless photo of himself.

The thing is, it is not even a secret anymore that districts are checking in on their teachers.

CMS has an investigator who specializes in online issues, including reports of inappropriate material posted by students about teachers. Carr said “several” employees a year are disciplined for inappropriate posts. CMS generally responds to complaints, rather than randomly viewing pages.

CMS and other districts also check Web pages, especially popular networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, before hiring, Carr said.

Yet, these Facebook embarrassments continue to roll in with regularity. I have been chided in the blogosphere for recommending against usage of Facebook by pre-service teachers on the job market, but how many more examples do we need? Teachers use facebook at their own peril. If you use facebook in a non-professional manner, just be prepared to be fired for it. Students, parents and administrators absolutely will check your page and that information absolutely will be used in employment actions against you. I hate discouraging technology usage, but it is clear that this is one particular technology that many teachers simply have not figured out how to use responsibly.

The Kids Listen

They are always listening and our kids are just a reflection of us. 

Here is a sad example from Idaho where kids on a school bus started chanting "assassinate Obama." 

"I think the thing that struck us was just like, 'Where did they get the word and why would they put that word and that person together?'" said Whoolery.

I have a pretty good idea where they got it. All this educational law stuff only implicates students because that is all the school has authority to regulate ... but our parents bear a lot of the responsibility. Wouldn't it be nice if principals had the authority to give them detentions instead? 

The Adjunct Wave

USNews: "about two thirds of America's college instructors are now adjuncts"

Things have changed so much in so little time.

Google Flu?

Google is now tracking the flu. Yep, I am not kidding. They use their tracking capabilities of web searches to determine how many people in a given area are beginning to feel flu like symptoms. Here is a NY Times article on it. And here is Google explaining it themselves. In fact, Google even puts the data out there that you can download. Right now the flu activity in Kentucky is moderate. Monday my wife had the flu so perhaps I will be typing in "flu remedies" into Google later this week myself.

If this technology gets better and can be tracked at the county level, I could see this helping schools in being able to predict high flu risks and take addition steps such as hand washing to prevent outbreaks. We'll see, but sometimes you just have to be amazed what is possible with technology.

Cell Phones and Bus Drivers

The State Board of Education in Utah will likely ban school bus drivers from using cell phones while on the job at their next meeting. This is part of the fallout from the California train wreck where the driver missed a signal because he was texting. Look for this regulation in a state near you soon if it hasn't already been passed. This is sort of a no-brainer and many local companies and districts already have this policy, but it is an easy way for the state board of education to look good.  

Is the blogoshpere dead?

That's what Nicholas Carr thinks. And he is no slacker.

Sorry that a few of my posts lately have not focused on ed. law, but instead on blogging generally; but, since this is a blog itself the topic has always interested me and since I was asked to speak on blogging not long ago at a professional conference as if people perceived me as some expert, I thought I would start studying it so as to better pretend to be one.

In short Nick is making the same argument I have been making lately. The blogosphere is transforming. It is not what it once was. Even the Economist agrees. The professional world has caught onto this little secret we had and they are investing heavily in it and as a result everyone else is catching on. These days when I tell people that I blog I don't get the reaction I used to get a couple years ago ... namely "what's that?" Nowadays I get "that's cool. What's the name of your blog?" Here is the reality:

Blogging has entered the mainstream, which—as with every new medium in history—looks to its pioneers suspiciously like death.

Of course, we are not looking at the death of the blogosphere. But, we are looking at its transformation into an accepted member of society. And, as with anything, when mainstream society gets ahold of something, it comes out different than when it went in. It is the different between a kid and a teenager and an adult. I suspect that blogging is in its teenage years now. I think blogging is getting more professional while much of the personal realm of blogging is going to alternative outlets like Twitter and Facebook.

As blogging gets more professional, it is going to need more rules of governance. Personally, I signed on with CASTLE because it is legitimization. It is a form of governance that I am accepting because I know it makes my blog more marketable in the new professional world of the edublogosphere. Also, I am beginning to invite in more "contributors" as another professional validation tool for my blog. And, if you need any more evidence of this professionalization, just look at what EdWeek has done. 

But recognizing that this is the period we are in is important because we can have some control over the rules that develop for this new professional realm. How do we count this type of writing? Professional? Research? Service? How much does it help the larger entity? Do we have relationships with the larger, sponsoring entity? If I get to count this in tenure at UK, should I be advertising for them in this space? How frequently do we need to post? What is a Technorati rating worth? Are comments important? How does all this translate into a professional contribution? There are lots of questions that need to be worked out and I suspect a person could build an entire research career around just this one issue.

In the end, though, we need to start looking at blogging differently. Blogging is a teenager and soon it will be an adult. The carefree and reckless years of our childhood are over and now we are beginning to face responsibilities. Who are we going to be in a few years?

Friday Snippets: Nov. 7, 08 - Let's Gamble

Education Week has the issues that will face the next president (subscription required).

Its budget cut time. Kansas. Alabama. Indiana. California. Rhode Island. Everywhere. In response states are turning to gambling.

In light of tight budgets in Hawaii, they are proposing closing schools for a week.

Universities are not safe from record industry lawsuits.

The New Jersey cap lawsuit keeps churning.

Around the Ed. Law Blogosphere: 

Mark Walsh has the Supreme Court's broadcast indecency case.

Reverse Due Process ... it happens as Wrightslaw explains.

Jim G. has some OSEP action on state performance plans.

Mitchell R. has a good new LRE case.

Pamela Parker has a some lunchtime legal issues for teachers which is sort of cool.

ASCD Inservice brings up my critical comments of Detention Slip in the past, which I stand by.

NASSP's Principal's Policy Blog has the substantial cost of teacher absences.

And for your Friday Fun:Pandora. Its a free music service that customizes your playlist to the type of music you enjoy. I have been pretty pleased with the customization around progressive bluegrass and I find myself using Pandora more and Rhapsody less.

Webinar on Dropout Prevention for Girls

The National Women's Law Center is holding a free webinar on dropout prevention policies for girls. Issues to be addressed include pregnancy and parenting responsibilities of girls and model programs for addressing these challenges. It's next Wednesday at 1 eastern for those interested. Register here.

If you got tips on educational law related events, send them to me personally like their online outreach director did and I will consider posting them.