Student Work

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting some of my student work. We (the teachers of A308/E310 at Indiana University) had an assignment that asked students to combine their knowledge of educational law with some Web 2.0 tools. The results were very impressive. I will be posting some of them both as a reward for working hard on the project and to show others what is possible when you let the reins loose a little on student creativity.

Here is the first one. Completed by Carlton and Luke: (Listen to the words).

Everyday Race and Education

I am posting the following for a couple of reasons. First, Mica Pollock is a great up and coming professor at Harvard University who is doing some cool work from a cultural anthropologist's standpoint. So, the lecture at USC's School of Education is certainly worth your time, especially if you deal with race or affirmative action issues and you are concerned about how we "talk" about that in schools. She also spends a little time talking about her new book, Because of Race, which should be available in the summer and talks about her experiences when working for the Office of Civil Rights. Enjoy.

Second, I am posting this link because tomorrow I have to address the faculty within the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University. Mostly I am going to be speaking about our departmental website and ways to improve that. But, as part of my talk, I am going to be speaking a little about Web 2.0 and how to begin integrating that into our curriculum and our organizational structure. In the video above, you see an associate professor of education speaking passionately about an issue she has done a lot of research on. The video doesn't show the classroom, but let's assume there are 25 students in there. But, the video of the lecture was posted to You Tube. It was just posted so there have not been a lot of views yet, but over the course of a year, this lecture is likely to be viewed hundreds if not thousands of times (and linked to on blogs like this). 500 > 25. Sort of simple, right? If we are serious about getting our research out to the world (the whole world not just those that read academic journals) this is a no brainer. But, there are also latent benefits to this type of communication activity. If you happen to be the chair of the departments at either USC (where this lecture was given to an ordinary class, pretty cool) or at Harvard (where the lecturer teaches) does the advertising get much better than this? "What's it like to be in our program? Well, let me refer you to ..." There is a new world of communication not just on the horizon, but existing today. Some programs are ahead of the curve and are using this new media not only to the advantage of the department, but also for the betterment of the public. A nice win-win.

By the way, in the near future, be on the lookout for some videos that students of mine made in their undergraduate law class. I will post a few of them here.

Check out this Feel Good Story

For all the bad press that our schools get these days, it is nice when you come across a story that reminds you that we really do have great people in our schools. In Franklin, NH a principal is donating a kidney to one of his students. Here is the story. First, kudos to Jim Friel, the principal. This is well beyond what is asked of him and to give of yourself (literally) in this way is tremendous. So, thank you.

Secondly, I just want to take this opportunity to remind people just what special people we have leading our schools. They have one of the toughest jobs in the country (everyone thinks they can do their job better than them) and yet they remaining an overwhelmingly positive, committed and caring group. It really is amazing.

So bravo to Jim Friel and all the kindhearted school administrators out there.

Illinois Mandatory Moment of Silence Law

In Illinois, there has been an ongoing controversy over their mandatory moment of silence law. Well, now a judge has ruled that there is no punishment for districts that fail to comply:

A mandatory moment of silence foisted upon Illinois schoolchildren
by state lawmakers in October is somewhat less mandatory today.

United States District Judge Robert Gettleman said Thursday that the
state school superintendent can't punish districts that don't hold a
moment of silence. The office of Chris Koch, superintendent of the
state board of education, always contended there was no penalty in the
law to begin with.

Gettleman's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Rob Sherman, an
outspoken local atheist, and his daughter Dawn, a freshman at Buffalo
Grove High School. They say the moment of silence is akin to school
prayer and deprives Dawn of instructional time during the school day.

Continue Reading...

Here is a news report on the lawsuit that was filed to stop the mandatory moment of silence suit:

UCEA Liveblogging: Evaluating Educational Leadership

The Taskforce on Evaluating Educational Leadership meeting went well today. Dr. Robert Kottkamp, who was largely responsible for the formating of the taskforce, gave a compelling reflection on how much progress the educational leadership field has made in just a few years. Efforts to evaluate educational leadership are underway in several states. Some states, such as Utah, are now past the initial stages and are developing subsequent studies to gain even more detail into leadership outcomes. It is always nice to sort of look back on the amount of work that is done over time. We get caught up in the day to day battles and tend to lose sight of the bigger picture. That is not to say there is still not a lot of hard work ahead of us in evaluating educational leadership preparation. As much as I was struck by Dr. Kottkamp's presentation, I was more struck by the amount of work still to be done.

Live Blogging UCEA

Over the next few days I will be live blogging out of Alexandria, VA as I attend the University Council for Educational Administration conference. Scott McLeod from Iowa State is also live blogging at Dangerously Irrelevant.  UCEA is an educational leadership entity primarily, but because of the large presence of educational law in educational administration programs, there are a substantial number of educational law presentations and some of the best educational law researchers in the world attend the conference (of course, this year it conflicts with ELA, grrr). This year, Jesulon Gibbs and I will be presenting on the aftermath of the Morse Case. I will post tomorrow about the experience and the questions and reactions of the audience. Also, I will post today about my discussions in the Evaluating Educational Leadership Preparation Taskforce meeting. I wish I had better news to report to them this afternoon about the progress in evaluating Indiana's educational leadership programs, but I am afraid I don't.

Video Camera Live Feed to Police Headquarters

The top story on the  Drudge Report yesterday was about a school in New Jersey that is sending live feeds from their 20 school cameras directly to the police. The Drudge Report is a conservative leaning news source, so it ran the story to decry the lack of privacy in the modern world.

DEMAREST, N.J. (CBS) ―
Surveillance cameras rolling inside our local schools is nothing new,
but what's taking place inside Demarest's public schools is truly
cutting edge: a live feed from more than two dozen cameras with a
direct connection to the police.

It's an expensive, but effective tool that could be a sign of the times with an increase in school shootings over the years.

The system, which cost about $28,000, can even track movement in a crowded room.

"When
they arrive, they can pull up the school's live feed and do a sweep
instantly," Demarest Police Chief James Powderley tells CBS 2.

Patrolling
officers have access to the video feed from headquarters and several
laptops. To address privacy concerns, all of the cameras are installed
in public areas and are not equipped to pick up audio.

The
video capabilities are extremely impressive. Each of the laptops can
pick up 16 different angles at one time, turning a single operator into
a mobile surveillance team.

The Video from WCBS, New York.

This represents the next step in school video surveillance. While I too am concerned about the lack of privacy, with the cameras only in public areas and given the current state of the law regarding privacy in schools, I see nothing clearly illegal under current law about this activity.

What I am concerned more about (although this story does concern me) is the increasing relationship between schools and the police. In cases such as this, it is almost as if the police are the school's private security firm. Because of the differences in the law regarding how police treat the public and how school authorities treat school children, mingling the two authorities in schools can be problematic. Police are trained for a different purpose than school authorities are trained and their responses to school disciplinary incidents are naturally going to be different. There is a certain degree of administrative discretion in school authorities (who are always former teachers) that police are not trained or qualified to enforce.

SREB Report: States need to take more active role in Principal Preparation

It has sort of been a slow news weekend regarding educational law, so I wanted to provide the link to this new report from the Southern Regional Education Board. As any regular reader of the blog knows I am involved in the educational leadership preparation community so when new reports come out calling for greater state intervention, I take notice. Here are a couple of quotes:

On Educational Leadership Preparation Programs:

    In an age of high-stakes accountability, too many university-based principal preparation programs still are offering a last-century curriculum overloaded with courses on management and administration. These programs do not spend enough time helping aspiring principals develop the competencies they need to lead a team of highly skilled and motivated teachers.

---

Most states do not have university-based principal preparation programs that help aspiring principals develop instructional leadership competencies. While there is a growing consensus about the best designs for these programs, many of today’s principals are ill-prepared to be instructional leaders because their graduate programs did not prepare them for the instructional and organizational changes their schools need to raise student performance.

On State Leadership Standards:

    Make sure your state’s leadership standards say exactly what you expect of a school leader. What are the principal’s responsibilities, and what must he or she know and be able to do to meet those responsibilities? These leadership standards not only lay the foundation for principal preparation programs and principal evaluations; they make a powerful statement about what we want our schools to be and what we expect our school systems and universities to accomplish.
    Do not be satisfied with simply adopting the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards, as many states have. They place too little emphasis on the responsibilities today’s school leaders have for improving schools and student learning. They are vague about what principals must know and do to lead successful schools.

On Evaluation of Pre-Service Principals:

States lack criteria and consistent processes for evaluating principals’ performance on the leadership standards: After a state’s leadership standards are established and implemented, how can policy-makers know if an aspiring or practicing school leader meets the standards? States need specific criteria to measure each principal’s job performance and to distinguish levels of performance.

If you are employed in a university-based educational leadership preparation program, it is worth the read. If respected policy center like SREB begin to put the onus for regulation of educational leadership programs on the state, universities stand to lose much of the professional autonomy it presently enjoys.

Well, Its Official: No NCLB Reauthorization this Year

Not that it was any secret at this point, but the NCLB Reauthorization is now officially not going to happen in 2007. The key Senators that controlled the Education Committee have stated their plan to take up the law again early next year.

Andrew Rotherham at Eduwonk thinks there may be some activity after the primaries, but that it is still a long shot to be reauthorized before the election. I tend to agree, but I feel pretty confident that that Democratic Senate is not likely to move very quickly on this issue since the chances are high that the Democratic Nominee is likely to be an active Senator and that none of the leading Democratic candidates have particularly focused on education in their campaigns.

So, what does this mean? For now, the Congress on Nov. 1 passed a continuing resolution for 2008 funding for the Department of Education. This basically means that everything is going to stay the same at least for 2008 and the programs will still be funded. Probably we are looking at Summer or Fall 2009 as the next real opportunity to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. So, we will have to wait. 

Vouchers Fail in Utah Referendum

The sweeping Utah Voucher plan is no more ... well at least not for a while. The plan that made headlines when it was passed was rejected by the voters Tuesday by a wide margin.

    Voters decisively rejected
the will of the Utah Legislature and governor Tuesday, defeating what
would have been the nation's most comprehensive education voucher
program in a referendum blowout.

    "Tonight, with the eyes of the nation upon us, Utah has
rejected this flawed voucher law," said Kim Campbell, president of the
Utah Education Association. "We believe this sends a clear message. It
sends a message that Utahns believe in, and support, public schools."

    More than 60 percent of voters were rejecting vouchers, with
about 95 percent of the precincts reporting, according to unofficial
results. The referendum failed in every county, including the
conservative bastion of Utah County.

Continue Reading ...

I will have to say I was a little surprised at the vote. It says a lot about the power that remains in the teachers unions, who were the chief opponents of the law. The Utah Education Association not only gathered the necessary signatures to force the referendum, but also took the lead in campaign advertising which totaled over 4 million, supplemented by teachers unions from other states. The result was a near landslide in the polls against the voucher law. Pretty impressive, and surprising, stuff.

Brave, But Not Crazy: A Lesson in Teacher Activism and the Power of the State over Curriculum

By now, you are probably aware of the David Wasserman story our of Madison, WI. In protest over the state mandated testing required by the No Child Left Behind Act, David chose to protest the administration of the test. He sat in the teachers' lounge while a colleague was in the classroom giving the test. This triggered a reprimand from the school and a threat of losing his job if he again failed to give the test. The next day, he did administer the test in an effort to keep his job. Here is local TV coverage of the incident (press play).

There are a couple of lessons we can take away from this incident.

1. The power of the state over local curriculum is absolute. If a state legislature chooses to mandate standardized testing, there will be standardized testing, whether or not the personnel administering the test agree. This is the same for all curricular matters. If the state does not mandate specific curriculum requirements, then it falls to the Board of Education to make curricular decisions. These decisions rarely, if ever, fall to teachers. The most that teachers can hope to influence is the manner of delivery of the state and board of education mandated curriculum. Certainly teachers can sit on planning committees and make recommendations to the board of education, but they cannot unilaterally decide to change the curriculum or fail to implement it. Thus, the action of this teacher in Wisconsin amounted to insubordination, an offense for which he could rightfully be fired.

2. In the end, he was not fired (at least it does not appear he will be) and he is still earning his $45,000 + health insurance.  But, he drew national attention to the fact that some teachers' are so upset with the No Child Left Behind testing provisions that they are willing to violate school rules. Given that NCLB is up for reauthorization and on the mind of presidential candidates, it was an especially potent statement. David Hoff at Education Week noted how much traction this story was getting and David Wasserman has quickly become beloved in the blogosphere. And just the other day, I saw Newsweek did a Q&A of this jeans and beads wearing guy (probably didn't hurt he taught in Madison - might have bought him that day whereas he might have been fired immediately in other districts). The point is that teachers can still have a voice in educational policy. Most of the time I recommend working within the system to make your voice is heard, but occasionally a teacher can even work outside the system to get a point across. Just remember, however, that in today's post Garcetti world, working outside the system and making public comments or engaging in public actions in opposition to a school's official position is increasingly dangerous to your continuing employment. 

The Cost of Educational Finance Suits

At any one time across the U.S. there are around 10 educational finance lawsuits at play. These lawsuits typically involve an entity attempting to sue the state to provide more adequate or equitable funding of the public education system. While I try to keep up with many of them, I don't note all of them on the blog. To see what is going on in your state, you can check this site maintained by Columbia University.

Anyway, I was reading about the ongoing Missouri litigation this morning and I came across a striking number. Here is the quote from the Columbia Tribune:

"We continue to believe the current school funding system and level of
funding deprives children of their fundamental right to a quality
education," CEE Chairman Jeff Lindsey, superintendent of Van Buren
schools, said in a prepared statement.

Lindsey told the Tribune that the CEE board vote was unanimous. The
board includes Columbia Public Schools Superintendent Phyllis Chase.

The Columbia district is a plaintiff in the lawsuit and has spent more
than $81,000 on the litigation to date. Board members are expected to
decide at the Nov. 12 meeting whether the district will remain part of
the suit. The court battle has cost taxpayers statewide more than $4.6
million so far.

Columbia Board of Education Vice President Darin Preis said this morning he supports being part of the appeal.

"We haven’t talked about this as a board, but, personally, I think it’s
a good idea to continue," he said. "We need to be part of the solution."

A more equitable funding system would not hurt Columbia if overall
education funding were increased, Preis said. "If we try to spread the
current pot, it could be damaging. But I would say there’s not enough
money in the pot right now," he said.

"I’m concerned about" the expense of the suit, Preis said, "but I think sometimes it costs to do the right thing."

Continue Reading ...

The cost of the lawsuit so far has been 4.6 million dollars? Compared to the roughly 2.7 billion that Missouri is spending on public schools, this number is quite small. But, it does still stand out to the general public and some in Missouri are calling on the districts to stop the lawsuit because of the high cost. I am not going to address the merits of the case, but consider the amount of money that could be saved if the schools and the legislature simply worked together more.

NCLB Reauthorization Status Report from LATimes

Just wanted to link all of you to a great status report on NCLB Reauthorization. Kudos to Nicole Gaouette the author.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) has never been one to
back away from a brawl -- he once warned an adversary that if he wanted
to fight, it was going to take a while, so he'd better bring lunch. But
as Miller pushes to renew the landmark education law known as No Child
Left Behind, he faces so many fights that the fate of the bill is
increasingly in doubt.

As chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Miller is
sparring with Republicans who see his proposed changes as an
unacceptable watering down of the law's core standards.

Teachers object to his proposal to link pay to performance.

Even his fellow Democrats -- particularly freshmen who campaigned
against it and members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- are giving
him a hard time, largely for not doing enough to soften the law's most
rigid requirements.

The 2001 law, President Bush's hallmark domestic achievement, is
supposed to be renewed every five years, although it remains in effect
even if lawmakers fail to do that.

Democrats pledged to rewrite it this year, but time is short and
political tensions are high. Congress plans to adjourn for the year in
a few weeks. And some Democrats are loath to give Bush a victory on No
Child Left Behind when he refused to compromise on the Iraq war.

"We're certainly not in full agreement," Miller said, mentioning talks
with committee Republicans. "Not between my caucus and their caucus,
not between Mr. McKeon and myself. Whether we can reach an agreement
remains to be seen. We're pushing as hard as we can."

Continue Reading ...

What to do with Law Students and how to get them into Education?

The New York Times has an interesting article this morning on changing the law school curriculum toward a more practically oriented perspective.

Here are a couple of highlights.

1. Schools are moving to include a course on interpreting statutes and regulations in the first year. Personally having aided in the design of just such a course at Southern Illinois University Law School, I can't tell you how pleased I am to see this catching on across the country. At least in education law, most of the legal content governing schools are from statutes, yet most of the scholarly productivity is on cases. It is time to change our focus a bit.

2. Law schools are making it easier to take courses in other graduate programs in the university. As a product of a joint-degree program, again, I am pleased to see this trend. Further, working here at IU, there is an increasingly productive relationship between the School of Educationin which I teach and the IU Law School. The relationship is really helping to produce some great individuals in education law who will have a big impact on schools in the future.

3. Law schools are expanding their clinical offerings. In a sort of unofficial study I did of law school offerings, I was surprised how many law schools offered a clinical program in special education law. Special education is an underserved field within the legal community and I am extremely pleased to see law schools picking up some of the slack. I would encourage more law schools to consider a special education clinic as part of their practical education package.

As law schools begin to adapt their curriculum to a changing world, I hope they see the potential in educational law. Programs are offering more and more joint degrees in business, public administration, health and even philosophy, but to this point are still generally neglecting joint education degrees (heck my old law school has one - I know because I set it up while I was there - but fails to advertise it). At education schools with educational policy programs and educational lawyers on staff, efforts should be made to connect with the law school to provide options to young lawyers to enter education.

Principals in Power in New Orleans?

Even since Hurricane Katrina, the schools in New Orleans have been in a state of constant flux. Rules are being rewritten and there are more charter schools and other non-traditional education opportunities than ever before.

The latest is a proposal by Recovery Superintendent Paul Vallas (former Superintendent of Chicago and Philadelphia). He wants to give more governance authority to principals. This new authority would include the hiring and firing of teachers, a power typically reserved for central administration. Also, the new plan intends to give principals greater control over their budget.

Here is the article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune

While I understand the desire to give this decision-making authority to the people that work most closely with the teachers, I do have a few reservations. First, principals are already overworked. Putting personnel and budget authority also in their hands will only exacerbate the problem. Principals are supposed to be the curriculum leaders for schools. Already most principals find little time for directing the curriculum with all the disciplinary, supervision, and evaluation responsibilities. My second concern is regarding the relationship between principals and teachers. When decisions are made by central office staff (based on principal evaluations and recommendations) principals are free to develop closer relationships with teachers. But, when a principal knows they may have to fire a teacher they are less likely to develop those intimate relationships that help the school function. Also, teachers will likely become more vocal about personnel decisions. A board, superintendent and central administration is hard to fight, but a local principal is much easier to get removed with a little public outcry. With the new configuration, I would expect teachers to complain more publicly in attempts to remove unfavorable principals.

Anyway, those are just a few reservations that strike me immediately about this possible governance change. I do not think I am 100% opposed to it, but it will carry implications that will probably make local schools more cold and hostile places.

Reader Comment Strip Search of 13 Year Old - Redding v. Stafford

Typically I don't post reader comments on the main blog page, but this one warranted special attention. About a month ago I wrote on a strip search case out of the 9th Circuit: Redding v. Stafford. The case involved a strip search of a 13 year old by school administrators who were looking for prescription Ibuprofen. At the time I disagreed with the majority who ruled the search was legal.

Well, a few days ago, the plaintiff in that case wrote back in a comment:

Savana Lee Redding wrote:

This article is about me and i want
to thank Justice Thomas for standing up for me when no one else would.
i wrote a letter to the editor of the Eastern Arizona Courier. go to
their website and read it, its called, "How would you feel?", and leave
a comment. I appreciate this article very much. -Savana Lee R.

Link to Eastern Arizona Courier Editorial

Since the plaintiff of the case wrote the comment, it has special meaning. I brought this case up to the educational law class I teach and the students took special interest and as a group really felt for the plaintiff. Since the class I teach in this semester has over 140 students, it is likely that this case will have a impact moving forward as not only will most of those students become teachers, but many will become administrators and be in positions to make search and seizure decisions such as the one in this case.

So, Savana, thanks for writing back. I am sorry you had to go though the situation you did, but hopefully we will all learn something from it and the world will be a little better place going forward.

PDA, Sexual Harassment and Bullying - Where are the lines?

Interesting story in the Dallas Morning News this morning on public displays of affection among students (PDA).

Schools take hard line against public displays of affection

Critics say bans on hugging, touching go too far in bid to prevent sexual harassment suits

04:51 AM CDT on Friday, October 19, 2007

By STELLA M. CHAVEZ / The Dallas Morning News

schavez@dallasnews.com

A 7-year-old boy in
Duncanville gets in trouble for telling a classmate to wear a darker
shirt because he can see her bra strap. The school suspends him and
labels the incident as sexual harassment.

In Keller ISD, school officials catch an eighth-grade girl holding hands with a friend and tell her to stop.

   

From bans on hugging to labeling comments as sexual harassment, schools
are cracking down on anything that smacks of sex. Critics say teachers
and administrators have become too fearful of lawsuits and have stopped
letting kids be kids.

Recent precedent-setting lawsuits
have made it clear that school officials must respond to complaints of
student-on-student sexual harassment or face possible court action.

"I think it's the kind of world we live in today, but you would hope
that common sense would prevail," said Jeff Horner, a Houston attorney
who represents school districts.

Experts liken the
crackdown on student behavior to the way districts responded to safety
and security issues after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School
in Colorado.

Archie McAfee, executive director of the
Texas Association of Secondary School Principals, said school
principals and administrators are caught in the middle.

If a school district punishes a student for what parents say is a minor
offense, it faces scrutiny. But if a district doesn't take a complaint
seriously, it could be held responsible.

The Supreme
Court ruled in 1999 that school districts can be held liable for
ignoring complaints of student-on-student harassment or failing to
protect students.

In that case, Davis vs. Monroe County School Board of Education,
the parent of a fifth-grade female student sued the school district for
failing to intervene when a fellow fifth-grader harassed the girl for
several months. In the court's eyes, the district had been negligent.

Jim Walsh, an Austin lawyer who specializes in school law, said the
case proved that sexual harassment is a legal concern – not just a
moral and educational one.

Continue Reading ...

This is one of the areas I see a lot of confusion about among school administrators and teachers. I can understand schools over-regulating in this arena, but it is really unnecessary. There are a lot of horror stories floating around where schools were inactive in stopping some form of student-to-student abuse and there is a suicide or a million dollar judgment against the school. Still, those instances are extremely rare. Thus, it is important for school personnel to understand what Davis v. Monroe said. Here is the slide I use in teaching this material:

So, let me say a couple things about it. First, school personnel can be school officials, so this implicates everyone. Second, deliberate indifference is more akin to purposefully ignoring than it is to simple lack of oversight. Further, cases have found that some reasonable action toward stopping the harassing treatment gets school authorities off the hook for deliberate indifference. So taking some action to resolve the behavior may be enough; it is not necessary to suspend a student to avoid lawsuits under this standard, simply acknowledging that such harassment exists and asking students to stop may be sufficient based on the circumstances. As if those two prongs of this test were not enough, the Supreme Court added a third prong to protect school officials even more, the severe, persistent and objectively offensive prong. What is severe, persistent and objectively offensive? Well, it varies from case to case, but simple instances of a PDA would probably not qualify. The Supreme Court intentionally added this prong to protect schools and school authorities from all but the most blatant instances of student-to-student harassment.

Just like most things in schools, we rely on the judgment of the school authorities. When school authorities are making rational and reasonable judgments about stopping harassment, more often than not they will be protected by the Davis v. Monroe test. It is only when teachers and administrators get outside the bounds of reasonable judgment that they subject themselves to liability.

Edit: Found this today and thought it applied. From Slate.Com:
              

Special Ed Law Blog and Board Buzz Mixing it up over Recent Tom F. Case

Just wanted to clue my readers in to the mini-debate that went on between the Special Education Law Blog and Board Buzz at NSBA. And, a hearty kudos to the authors for mixing it up a little. We could use more of that in the educational law blogosphere. Nicely done.

Post 1: In Tom F. Case Tie Goes to the Parents (Special Ed Law Blog)
Post 2: Bellyaching, Blogs and BoardBuzz (Board Buzz)
Post 3: Stinging Back over Tom F. (Special Ed Law Blog)\

Just for the record, I agree schools are not the weaker party as Special Ed Law Blog asserts and that IDEA should be construed in favor of the children/parents, but I agree with BoardBuzz that this case was wrongly decided by the 2nd Circuit and the 4-4 split just reinforced that wrong decision. IDEA was meant to provide special education services at public schools, not at private schools with unilateral placement. I also agree that this will not affect the large majority of special education cases, but I could certainly see a rise in private schools marketing their special education services to parents to encourage unilateral placement with tuition reimbursement. Given the cost of some of these private placements, even one student going this route will create a financial burden. It is not the end of the world, but it will be an additional financial burden on district budgets that are already stretched thin by special education. All that was needed to avoid the potential additional burden is to require parents to at least try the public school placement, which is not too much to ask as it is the public's dollars that will pay for education.

If the Supreme Court wanted to give parents some more rights in Special Education, they should have done it in Schaffer v. Weast and left the burden of persuasion on the school. The Tom F. case was inappropriately decided and I hope they take another case soon to clarify the issue (although they just denied cert. in Hyde Park v. Frank G., a case which could have provided more clarity).

President Bush on NCLB Reauthorization and Supplemental Services

As sort of a follow up to the post linking to a report I coauthored on NCLB choice and SES, I want to post this link to some CBS News Video of President Bush in Arkansas talking about NCLB. Interestingly, he states that if Congress passes a weakened NCLB, he will veto it.

CBS News Video

                   

New CEEP Report Out: Outcomes of the School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Provisions of NCLB

A new report titled, Outcomes of the School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Provisions of NCLB is out today at the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy at Indiana University. I was a coauthor on the report along with Terry Spradlin.

A press release on the report can be found at the IU School of Education and the IU Newsroom.