Liveblogging ELA

Well, the sessions have started, so let the blogging begin. I'll call it liveblogging, but it is sort of contemporaneous-blogging when I steal away a few minutes here and there. In this post, I want to sort of set the scene, report on the Rose session last night and give some initial thoughts.

Setting the Scene:
We are at the Brown Hotel in Louisville, which is a lovely old hotel. This is very much ELA's tradition and I like it. We get to stay in some of the best hotels in the country at low conference rates - which is just a good deal. There seems to be lots of bars and restaurants close, so that's good also. I think attendance is down a little because of the economy, but there are still a lot of people here and a very full slate of presentations. In fact, the conference extended a little this year into Wednesday night and until late Saturday evening.

Report on Rose at 20:
It went really well, and, again, thanks to everyone that helped. Governor Beshear came and spoke about education reforms in Kentucky and the impact of the Rose case. I think meshing the national scholarly audience and the local practitioner audience went as well as could have been expected. I think the practitioners were a little confused by the scholars and the scholars a little confused by the practitioners, but that seems to be the nature of the beast. Either way, I am getting very positive comments, so I am going to take it as a victory and move on. Really, I am just glad its over - it took a lot of my time and energy lately.

Initial Thoughts:
I think the thing I am excited about the most so far is the new make-up of the leadership of ELA. I really like Cate Smith as the new director. Brad Colwell will be a good President and I like the new incoming Board members. I am especially happy for Susan Bon from GMU and Tom Hutton who just left NSBA. I think they both bring a lot of good ideas to the table. I am excited to see what comes of that new energy.

Catching Up With Cases

Also, thanks to the Rose timedrain, I have been lax in putting out some important cases that have come down lately. So, let's get them out. 

First, last Friday Pontiac v. Spellings en banc came out of the 6th Circuit. Mark's got the details. It came down in a split decision, meaning the dismissal was affirmed. But, WOW, how close was that? We came 1 6th Circuit judge short of a Supreme Court case directly on NCLB - who knows, with the split decision, maybe the Supreme Court will think about taking it (although I doubt it because they probably collectively like the current result - although surely Scalia and Thomas will push for it). Anyway, this is an important case and I look forward to getting more details out about it soon. Gina, who I discussed this case with earlier in Edjurist TV, will be at ELA and we are planning to discuss the outcome. 

Also, the Colorado Supreme Court saved a school finance suit and sent it to trial in Lobato v. State. Here are some details and here is a analysis from Joshua Dunn at Education Next. This is not a victory for the plaintiff's, but it at least signals that the Supreme Court is interested in having this case heard on the merits. So, we'll see where that goes. 

ELA Starts Today

Lost for me in all the Rose hubub, has really been the ELA conference, which starts today in Louisville. Scott, Neal and I are all going to be presenting (Scott and Neal on important things ... me, not so much). I love ELA because everything interests me. Other conferences that I go to typically only about 1/2 the program interests me (believe it or not, there are just some things in education that bore me). This year, as always, the sessions look fantastic and I am especially looking forward to hearing Charles Rose, the General Counsel to the U.S. DOE, talk on ARRA and Race to the Top issues. 

Anyway, if you are planning to be there, be sure to say hi. If you are not, I'll be blogging the conference as always and bringing you as much good information as I can. I'll also post Twitter updates with the hashtag #ELA09 and if any of you also tweet, put that hashtag in your post and we can have a little miniconversation on the backchannel. 

Rose at 20 - Invite and Thank You's

I want to formally invite all my readers to come to Rose at 20: The Past and Future of School Finance Litigation (don't worry it's free!). Next Wednesday, we are having a little get together in the evening at the Brown Hotel in Louisville, KY to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the Rose v. Council for Better Education lawsuit that lead to the overhaul of the Kentucky school finance system in the Kentucky Education Reform Act. The event is being held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Education Law Association. Please click on either of the images for the full flyer.

Click for BrochureThe local participants include the Governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear, the President of the University of Kentucky, Lee Todd, the Dean of the UK College of Education Mary John O'Hair, the Dean of the College of Law, David Brennen, Judge Ray Corns, and Debra Dawahare, who represented the vicitorious plaintiffs. Debra still works at Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, who are also sponsoring the event - and, I can't thank them enough for their support! 

As part of the evening as well will be a Kentucky Law Journal Symposium on the impact of the Rose case nationally and the future of school finance litigation. Kern Alexander will moderate the symposium in which Craig Wood, Bill Thro, and William Koski will participate and publish papers in a special issue of the Kentucky Law Journal (look for it next Spring and I'll post when it comes out). 

It will be an absolutely lovely evening of remembrance and I want to thank Scott Bauries, my blogging partner here, for helping to coordinate the event from the law school side. I also want to think Neal Hutchens for being willing to come on board with this event, Dana Daughtee for editing the special issue of KLJ, and Lesley Stout for making KLJ a part of this. I also want to thank the staffs of the two Colleges including Mary Ann Vimont, Judy Griffin, Brad Duncan, and the folks at UK PR. I also want to thank Richard Day of EKU, Wayne Young of KASA and everyone else that helped me gather information about the case.

Also, I want to tell my readers how pleased I was to work with the Education Law Association and how comforting I found Cate Smith's leadership. I think that organization will be in good hands moving forward and if you are a reader of this blog, I do encourage you to consider membership in that organization (and tell them I sent you because I get a discount!).

But, seriously, a lot of people had to work together to pull off an event like this and I was especially pleased with how everything came together.

So, please come out and have a lovely evening.

Do We Need A Student Rights Scorecard?

Such scorecards seem to be effective. On the front page of Kentucky.com right now is a story on the fact that Kentucky got a D in children's rights (non-educational rights, that is). First Star and the Children's Advocacy Institute of USD Law gave out grades to each state and sent them to newspapers ... and ... front page, baby!

As far as I know, we don't really have anything similar for student educational rights. Maybe we should? Certainly we saw how effective the bullying scorecard was.

AASA Legislative Update on YouTube

Slowly, but ever so surely, the upper echelon of education is wading into Web 2.0 - and, rest assured I'll be here to report what I find that's related to educational law. It's about time, I say. It's nice that these people are finally talking to me in a format that I can understand. 

Today, AASA's Legislative Update by Bruce Hunter, their chief policy advocate, at the AASA YouTube channel. The latest episode talks ESEA, Common Core, and the impact of the health care legislation on kids and schools. Great stuff. 

Enhanced Attorney's Fees in Civil Rights Cases & NSBA's Public Stance

Mark Walsh, doing his usual outstanding job, had a great post today on the Supreme Court oral argument in a case involving enhanced attorney's fees. Mark does such a great job with the facts and the Justice's positions at oral argument, I won't repeat them here. The case is Perdue v. Kenny and, broadly, civil rights lawyers were awarded an extra 4 million in "enhanced fees" (on top of the 6 million in typically permissible fees) for doing such an outstanding job on a foster system case against the Georgia Department of Human Resources. And, I'll just tell you now I don't like that award either and judging from Mark's reporting, I sort of expect it to be struck down. Fine.

What does concern me, though, is NSBA's amicus brief supporting the state of Georgia. In short, I think it was a little distasteful on their part. They make three principal arguments: (1) enhanced fees hurt students by taking money away, (2) enhanced fees reduce the likelihood of settlements, and (3) enhanced fees will discourage voluntary changes on the part of schools. None of their arguments are that bad, but neither are their arguments that good. I can feel, a little, NSBA stretching to make their case in the brief (especially the quasi-complaining about tight budgets). In fact, I don't think the arguments were good enough for NSBA to get involved in this.

Civil rights are a hot political issue and it is one you don't want to be on the other side of unless there is a really good reason. At least in my opinion, there wasn't one in this case. For instance, next week at ELA I am helping to coordinate a remembrance of the Rose v. Council for Better Education school finance case out of Kentucky where lawyers for school districts substantially advanced civil rights for students in Kentucky. In that case, one could make a good argument that the lawyers for the school board should have received "enhanced fees" for the educational benefit they brought to poor, rural Kentucky children. So, NSBA's members have been on the other side of this equation in the past for one. 

But, generally, on occassion I question how far NSBA's attorneys are willing to go. And, this is one of those occassions. Don't get me wrong, I love the work that NSBA does and it frequently directly benefits me, and they should absolutely be outstanding advocates for their members. But, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and it is good to not be seen as openly trying to diminish student and civil rights. Even though I agree with them that enhanced fees are probably not a good idea, making such a public statement in that forum I think was a little distasteful.

The Elephant and the Dragon ... A Review

This weekend I managed to squeeze in (between the celebrations of my sister being named homecoming queen! Yeah!) another of Dr. McLeod's recommendations. 

Today: The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What it Means for All of Us, Robyn Meredith, 2008, $10.85 on Amazon (but buy through CASTLE as our non-profit gets a little of the proceeds). Here's the book's website. 

The Bad:

1. Capitalist Ideology. At times, it's a little over-the-top and feels like it was written by a wall-street tycoon. This is not too annoying, but it is certainly noticeable at times (yes, i know I am picky as in the last one I complained about the socialism).   
2. A little heavy on history. I think most of it is relevant, but if you are not concerning about mid-twentieth century Indian and Chinese history you might want to skip the first few chapters. The part about eating kids was sort of especially gruesome. 
3. Slightly repetitious. This is something that many books in this genre suffer from, but I did notice it a few times in this one as well. 
4. Could have a few more citations, but that is probably just the scholar in me complaining. 

The Good: 

1. Well researched. You can clearly tell that the author, despite her young age, has gone to great lengths to gather facts and details. I appreciated that. I am sure it is still surface-level for geopolitical scholars, but for your average reader it contains a lot of great information. 
2. Not built to scare. A lot of books in this genre are built to scare people. For instance, even in The World is Flat I came away with a sense that Friedman thought scaring people might be effective. This book doesn't have any of that fear-mongering element. 
3. Not a lot of opinion. The author did a good job sticking to the facts and using facts to make points, as opposed to having opinions and then finding facts to support them. I thought this was a better approach than I have seen in a lot of books in the genre. 
4. Respectful. Because of the lack of opinion, there was little demonizing of either Indians, Chinese or Americans (or for that matter anyone else). 

Points Worth Mentioning: 

1. Education is America's immediate answer. Obviously I am going to love this point, but it was as clear as a church bell on a still Sunday morning. Like Fareed Zakaria, Meredith makes the point that education is one of America's last great advantages (heck, China closed all of its universities in the past century - some of since been reopened). And that education can spur innovation and economic activity into the next century. 
2. Outsourcing is real, but limited. Things that are easily outsourced ... have already been outsourced. So while we did lose the entire toy industry, most of the garment industry, most of the tech. manufacturing industry and many, many others (including my wife's old accounting job to India), many of the remaining jobs today will continue to remain in the United States because they are not as easily outsourced.
3. America is a net beneficiary from both outsourcing and China and India's increased relevance. Leaving geopolitics aside, just economically we benefit in two ways: (1) we save lots of money at Walmart as prices are deflated because of the cheap manufacturing costs; and (2) our 401k's and portfolios make money because American companies have profited substantially from the influx of cheap labor and new markets. So, while we complain about losing jobs, the vast majority of us are seeing real benefits from globalization. 
4. India and China are not Peers (yet). While there are billions of people and cities sprawling into the skyline and the countryside, neither China nor India are yet America's or Europe's peers. They are behind in almost every measure, have enormous societal welfare issues, spend less on almost everything, have an absurdly low standard of living, are still heavily illiterate, etc. Their sheer purchasing and production power because of the numbers makes them especially worth keeping an eye on, but they are no where near the American way of life (for better or worse). 
5. Economies Intertwined. But, while they are still playing catch-up and will be for many more decades, their economic impact on the global economy makes them impossible to ignore. It is not just that China holds a ton of dollars, but American companies will suffer enormously if China or India's economies stumble - and that will affect all of us by driving down the market, home prices, raising inflation, etc. They are part of our economy now (for better or worse). 
6. Education is our competitive advantage. There are lots more points, but you get the gist. However, I wanted to again return to education. Public schooling was our great competitive advantage during the post-War industrial build and it can be our great competitive advantage during the post information revolution reorganization. But, our current system was built for the industrial era, not the information era - and for education to again be our great competitive advantage, we have to adapt our schools.  

Recommendation: I loved this book. It was fabulous and I enjoyed every minute of it. It was well written, readable, fact-filled, and intelligent. It is probably a necessary read for most professors and a highly recommended read for most school administrators. Get it and enjoy it. 

In a Tight Market Year, A Few Jobs Available

It is a tight market for educational leadership positions nationwide, as it is in law and other areas. So, academic jobs will be a little scarce this year. But, I wanted to pass along a few that have come out already with a focus on law.

University of Missouri - I like lots of people there. If I wasnt' happy at UK, I would apply to this one.

University of Oklahoma - Where our new Dean just came from and has some cool infrastructure. Also, chance to work with and learn under Lawrence Rossow.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee -A good school of education in a reform city. Lots of research opportunities.

University of Wyoming - A small but probably nimble department. I think this position would actually be fun with its heavily rural focus.

Boise State - This is beyond my knowledge, but they do have a great football team that plays on blue turf.

St. Cloud State - Close to Minneapolis and probably could serve a large market because of their R-I focus.

Anyway, hopefully that will help your academic job search along a little. You can always check out this page for more information on that. If you have an academic position related to education law, please let me know for priority posting.  

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

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

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

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

School Discipline Litigation Stats in Ed. Next

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping the Definition of Biometric Records Under Control

I was just getting around to reading an article (see middle of page 5) out of Iowa that Scott M. clued me into regarding the new Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations that came out late last year. Michelle at the Connecticut Ed. Law Blog posted some of the major changes, but one change in particular is of interest regarding biometric records. In particular I think Scott and I are concerned about the following interpretation from Matt Carver, the Director of Legal Services for the School Administrators of Iowa. 

...Now, unless an eligible student or parent has given approval, staff
should not turn over documents during records requests that have
student handwriting on them, even if names are redacted. Likewise,
if someone requests a copy of a podcast made in a speech class, you
should not pass on that recording without permission from eligible
students or parents if the recording includes student voices...

Okay, first, here are the applicable provisions: 

Personally Identifiable Information
    The term includes, but is not limited to--
    (a) The student's name;
    (b) The name of the student's parent or other family members;
    (c) The address of the student or student's family;
    (d) A personal identifier, such as the student's social security 
number, student number, or biometric record;
    (e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student's date of 
birth, place of birth, and mother's maiden name;
    (f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or 
linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in 
the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the 
relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable 
certainty; or
    (g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or 
institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to 
whom the education record relates.

And here is the definition of biometric record: 

Biometric record, as used in the definition of personally identifiable information, means a record of one or more measurable biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual. Examples include fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting.

Okay, so one possible interpretation of these provisions is that no student data should ever leave the classroom ... never, ever, ever! No essays in the hallway, no pictures on the website, no filming of sporting events or school plays or graduations, just generally no records whatsoever, because most of those records are going to contain some biometric record (you could even argue that the student fingerprints on papers circulated in class could violate this provision - and consider how much would contain DNA). Heck, to be safe, you should probably never record or copy anything from your classroom.

Alright, I hear you; that is an extreme interpretation and one that I don't think even Matt in Iowa is suggesting, but it is the logical extension of his argument because if we come at this with the notion that anything that could possibly lead to an identification of a student by an NSA scientist is illegal ... then, well, everything is pretty much illegal because those guys are wicked smart and have lots of really cool tools. 

So, in my view, the more reasonable interpretation of this provision is the school actually releasing a real voiceprint, which apparently has a definition in security circles. This would make sense within the context of the other items in the list (a little noscitur a sociis for you legal beagles). Also, the inclusion of the clause "used for automated recognition" here is vital because it is not the people the definition is so concerned about as it is the machines and machines need systematic, replicable patterns in pre-determined formats. Thus, a machine is not just going to pull a voice in a podcast and automatically link that to a student - and I think the same goes for handwriting and pictures. So, my interpretation of this provision, at least tentatively until I can do some more research, is that biometic records sort of means what you think it would in it's plain meaning - a systematically and scientifically generated student record meant to identify a student by machines. I think the science-fictiony idea that comes to mind is what the DOE meant, not the broad, all encompassing possible definition. So, let's keep our interpretation of this provision under control until we are explicitly told otherwise by the Courts, Congress or the DOE.   

Bottomline, FERPA cannot be interpreted as building a total and complete wall between the school and the community. We would have really bad schools if that happened and very disengaged students. This is a good example of where the lawyers can't get in the way of the learning. Podcasting is a fabulous learning tool. Digital storytelling, amazing. I love Voicethread, as do thousands of educators around the country. Sharing is an important part of learning and the ability to share has increased exponentially in the past couple decades. Some students right here in Kentucky are sharing with students in Brazil everyday, for instance. FERPA cannot be extended to prohibit all of this sharing.   

Anyway, I hope to return to this subject in the relatively near future, but welcome any thoughts, comments or experiences from your schools or universities about how this is being implemented. 

Dissertation of the Year to Scott

Love passing along kudos to our contributors and the latest is that Scott B. won the Education Law Association, Joseph Beckham Dissertation Award. Scott defended his dissertation a couple months ago with R. Craig Wood as his Chair at the University of Florida. I don't think ProQuest has published the dissertation yet, but if you want to find at least a somewhat related article you can check this out at SSRN. 

Another feather in the cap for Scott and another bode of confidence that we have an outstanding group here at UK.

In Love with Lessig

I hope my wife is not reading ... but, I must admit my infatuation with Lawrence Lessig. He doesn't really speak on education directly, but the ideas impact education substantially. I highly recommend just clicking around this page. This video is particularly compelling. But, I want you do to this for me. Watch this video below from 24:00 to at least 29:00.

This is just one point among many that has caused me to question underlying assumptions about the order of things and, particularly, how technology may change the order of things.

Drug Testing Past the Limit

A school district in rural Texas is again going to try to randomly drug test all students. The leadership has decided that if it is challenged that they will set the legal precedent and win. That's possible, of course, if they take it all the way to the Supreme Court (who has provided pretty clear guidance in Vernonia and Earls). Good luck with it, I say, and good luck in the next re-election when the voters of your district find out how much "setting the precedent" costs.

Via - @SchoolLawNews

Filtering = Banning ... or Not?

Ira Socol makes a great point on his blog today, that filtering websites equates to banning books. I agree with the general concept, but I want to try to make a distinction (no idea if I'll succeed).

Photocredit: DML East BranchFirst, here's the downside of that comparison ... school boards legally have nearly limitless power when it comes to banning books (which is why a PR campaign like Banned Books Week is all that is left). A few legal standards (may) apply to banning books: (1) if they have procedures they must follow the procedures, (2) the banning must not be viewpoint discriminatory or violate a constitutional right, and (3) there should be a legitimate pedagogical reason. I say (may) apply because the Supreme Court has not ruled in this area since 1982 and the courts have sort of done their own thing for a while. For instance, courts have been using (3) above from the Hazelwood case, even though Hazelwood came after Pico. Anyway, while these standards may apply, they almost always don't as courts generally rule for schools in any challenges to the school curriculum generally and to banning books specifically.

But, let's say that someone brings a case similar to Pico (hopefully without the procedural nonsense that Pico had) but instead of being about books, it is about Internet filtering in schools. Using Ira's example, let's say it is about banning Wikipedia. In order for the outcome to be different, the Justices would have to be able to distinguish between banning books and filtering the Internet. In effect, in order to get a different outcome we need to be able to articulate the differences. This is important because advocates of stopping the broad filtering of the Internet in schools, such as Ira, may still have legal avenues open to them and they may not be limited to solely PR campaigns.

So, let's try to legally distinguish the two.

(1) The intakes are different. A point made by the Courts is that because schools have the power to decide which books are bought, they should also have the power to decide which books are banned. Well the Internet doesn't work that way and the school doesn't "buy" anything, nor does it make intake decisions. Everything is potentially taken in as soon as they flip on the power switch.

(2) The library v. classroom distinction doesn't hold. The Courts have made a distinction between books in the classroom and books in the library ... seeming to give a little more flexibility to schools in banning library books than classroom books (and sometimes the other way around too). Again, the Internet is both a library and a classroom all the time. It is like a library in that there is a wealth of information, but it is also like a classroom because much of the curriculum is either directly on the Internet or tangentially on the Internet. So, let's throw this distinction out the window.

(3) Hazelwood shouldn't apply. It's not super clear that it should apply to banning books anyway, but the reasoning behind applying Hazelwood is that a book in the school may bear the imprimatur of the school (it is approved by the school because it is in the school). I think that is a stretch anyway, but to say that the school endorses a website because a student pulls it up on the school computer is more than a stretch. Thus, the curricular part of Hazelwood shouldn't apply (I wouldn't complain if it is still used to keep the First Amendment out of this). 

(4) Vague and Overbroad takes on a whole new meaning. Courts strike down laws as unconstitutional when they are deemed vague and overbroad. Now, lest you get too excited about your local jay-walking ordinance, this argument very seldomly succeeds. It really wasn't a useful argument in the banning books scenario because a specific book was being banned from a specific place. But, because filtering works differently (broad, sweeping blocking) the opportunity for a vague and overbroad argument seems reasonable. This is strengthened when one considers that the Supreme Court has already used this doctrine to strike down mulutiple filtering laws (see COPA + Reno v. ACLU). While these have been Congressional statutes, I am not sure a similar concept couldn't work in local schools as well.

(5) There already are procedures and clarity on what must be banned. Whereas with banning books there is a lack of statutory procedure for boards to follow, with electronic materials CIPA requires both filtering and procedures for making those decisions. Thus, there is much less discretion at the school board level. In fact, CIPA contains specific language about what may be blocked (anything that is "obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors.") And while "harmful to minors" may seem amazingly vague and all encompassing, the essential purpose of the courts is to provide meaning to such meaningless terms (even "harmful to minors" is defined, thanks @budtheteacher). In effect, courts will determine themselves perfectly capable of determining what is "harmful to minors" if a website ban is challenged (i.e. - is Wikipedia really harmful to minors? - a judge may well say "no"). Anyway, the point here is that the absence of statutory law in relation to book banning gives school boards much more legal flexibility in the courts, and I don't think such flexibility is warranted in relation to Internet filters because there is a greater legislative framework. (Odd that CIPA may wind up being a helpful thing in this scenario.)

Anyway, that's a start in distinguishing banning books from Internet filtering. While I whole-heartedly agree with Ira's broad point, I think legally it makes a lot of sense to treat these two cases very differently ... which can only be good for those folks who seek to limit the school board's filtering power. Thus, I don't think the legal avenues are closed yet to specific, local challenges to school filtering decisions.

It Takes All Kinds of Crazy

My Minnesota (or former Minnesota) friends sent me this headline:

EVANGELICAL PUNK BAND ACCUSED OF MISREPRESENTING ITS CHRISTIAN MISSION, DISPLAYING ABORTION PHOTOS AT PUBLIC SCHOOL ASSEMBLIES

Rep. Bachmann to raise funds again for
controversial Christian rock ministry

And, the story is much as you expect and well worth the read (if it doesn't load it's because I think the Minnesota Independent's servers are overwhelmed).

This is why I love democracies ... it takes all kinds of crazy. Obviously my views do not align with Rep. Bachmann's, but if she wants to raise money for a group that is blatantly violating established law, so be it. But, school administrators, that doesn't mean that you need to be allowing them in your schools.

School administrators cannot rely on politicians for their direction in schools. Once those politicians put a law in place through the formal procedures, then you can rely on the law. But, the politicians themselves are frequently even less in touch with the law (or certainly in touch with ethics) than your average school administrator. Rep. Bachmann is just a good example of that.

A Quiet Year at the Court on Education?

Mark Walsh, who watches education at the Supreme Court closer than anyone, has noted that there are no education cases currently on the docket for the Supreme Court's fall term (although there are some tangentially related cases he does a good job of explaining).

I think this is a good thing, relatively. We have had a pretty busy past few years and there have been some substantial legal changes affecting schools on teacher speech, student speech, student searches, various elements of special education, English-language learners, and other areas like employment law. It has just been solidly busy (not overly busy) the last few years so I think it is refreshing to have a slower year mixed in. Of, course, feel free to disagree ...

A Sexting Discussion

A friend of mine in the twittersphere, Jeremy Brueck, did an interview with a school law attorney on the issue of sexting and I think there is some very good information in there. I think the point made that the law is slow to respond to this is a good one - and judges just sort of responding willy nilly does seem to be the standard. Mr. Single's point that there are no applicable statutes, outside of child pornography, is very good. I am not sure putting new laws in place that make students sex offenders is the right idea, but there must be some clarity.

I also liked the 4th Amendment discussion that starts around 18:00 - although I would disagree with the claim that we are waiting for the courts to develop the law in this area. I don't see a need for any more development - the reasonable suspicion standard will work just fine in cell phone/laptop scenarios as well.

Anyway, great stuff in here, so enjoy (its 30 min., but the good legal stuff starts around the 10:00 min. mark):

Sexting and School Law from Jeremy Brueck on Vimeo.

In this podcast, attorney Gregg Single and I discuss some general background information regarding sexting, talk about a few of the most well known sexting cases in Ohio and the U.S. and also address the issue of sexting from a student and parent perspective.

Private Suits against Fake Facebook Profiles

Here is a story that I sort of like out of Chicago. A parent of a boy that was profiled as a gay racist on facebook is suing the four creating students on various tort claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation (follow the link for the lawsuit).

This kind of suit is perfectly reasonable to me and I like that the school is not legally involved. Yes, this also could be construed as bullying, but bullying is very difficult to prove against the school. The school has the deep pockets in these scenarios, so I get the attraction, but the best legal suit frequently is the private tort action between the offending party and the injured party. 

h/t Scott McLeod