Job action at CMU?

For those of you who don't know, I'm a faculty member at Central Michigan University.  Classes are scheduled to start tomorrow, but, according to our campus newspaper, that won't happen.  Here's the article :

http://www.ourmidland.com/news/article_18146da4-cc5e-11e0-a80a-001cc4c03286.html

I'm not allowed to comment on this situation at this time, but maybe I'll post some pictures for you from the picket line.

Attorney General Opinions for Education

So, tonight is my first real deep foray into the usefulness of Attorney General opinions in educational settings ... and, I am really impressed by them. Any lawyer coming out of law school should at least be aware of attorney general opinions as an element of the legal system, but I do not think everyone is aware of exactly what kind of role those opinions can have. Certainly, I can say that I did not. 

But, after sitting tonight and reading about 30 historical opinions on the Kentucky Education Reform Act, I have to say how superbly useful they were to the implementation of that law, especially in relationship to Kentucky's School Based Decision Making Counsels. 

Anyway, consider using an Attorney General's opinion in the future in your state if you have a complex legal question that is unclear in statutory or regulatory language. 

A (lack of) Nationwide Student Protest

Just wondering why it hasn't happened yet. It is sort of the rage all across the planet now, with some specifically about education policy, in case you didn't know, and it just seems like it is time here. Students are organizing stuff like flash mobs at universities all across the country (here is ours), so I am a little surprised there are not organized protests for well ... anything whatsoever. Clearly the technology makes organizing something like this so simple, it just seems like something would have triggered such a public display of outrage by now. 

Just an observation. Curious as to your thoughts on why ...

Gambling on Education - Collectively Doubling Down on our Great American Bet

When I was in my first semester of my first year of law school, the professor I disliked the most (since retired, thankfully) said something that has always stuck with me deeply: "There are 2 investments that always pay off: Land and Education." To first year law students, law professors are like Gods. Especially one so willing to squeeze as he held our legal lives in his hand. 

Obviously, with not only this in mind, I invested heavily in education to the tune of two doctorates, a masters, and around $80,000 in debt (the only reason it is that low is that I did community college and public schools). Later, when I get a chance, I plan to try the other half of his formula. So, keep in mind that not only did I personally invest heavily in higher education, I have seen the promised good returns at least so far.  

But, at some point, even the safest "investment" becomes a gamble. I think education is crossing that border. New data from the Wall Street Journal and Federal Reserve today show that while America has tightened our belts in every aspect of spending, we as a group are continuing to individually double down on education.  

As an educator, and a direct beneficiary of America's (particularly Kentucky's) higher education habit, I am somewhat honored that America continues to put their trust in us to bring them worthy returns. But, at the same time, I am also cautious of an individual betting too heavily on this investment and bearing all of this risk. 

America's great national bet has always been on our people. We have invested and put our trust in our people and we have shown good returns time and again. In particular, we have bet on our youth. If we pour resources into our youth, generation after generation will reward the investment. I know I am personally planning to pay off every cent invested in me twice over or more - and I am building that same responsible passion into my children. Thus, it is on this gamble, that we have built not only a strong middle class, but a strong country - generation after generation. 

From an economic standpoint, there is nothing more productive than an educated and motivated population. If anything, we need to continue to push more higher education (and better P-12 education) out to the general public (and I'm fine with demanding better returns, also). But, at some point, we have to question just how much debt Paul Q. Public can sustain and still return profit on his or her investment not only for himself, but for us generally.

Therefore, I think we need to be asking ourselves quickly whether or not it is economically sensible to continue to pass the vast majority of that cost into future debt payments from the very students we are entrusting with building our future. 

I am more and more convinced that as a nation, we must bear more of this cost. I still want each person (at least each middle and working class person) to have to pay back debt. There is something motivating about that prospect and makes me work later nights than I otherwise would have. But, for many people the "investment" is appearing more and more as a personal gamble - and rightly so. It is closing off access to higher education to many in society who simply cannot fathom taking on a hundred grand in debt when they come from a family that lives on thirty thousand a year hourly wages. Not only is their potential productivity reduced, but their understanding of the great American gamble on all of our people is also reduced.  

As this debt "super committee" is considering all the options, I hope many of them were told the same investment story as my law professor bestowed on me. Adding new taxes should certainly be on the table, but those taxes should not go toward highways or space shuttles or even more crazy lab research at higher education institutions (no offense to my colleagues). We just need as a country to reinvest in our future - our young people - as generations before us have done. We need to make sure that our young people understand that this is a country where you can gamble big on learning - as long as you are willing to reinvest your knowledge and skills back into our collective group over your lifetime.

We are passing off our economic mistakes onto our youth, not just figuratively through national debt debates, but extremely directly and personally (look again at the chart above). We need to stop it, quickly. Our's can not be the generation that loses sight of the gamble that got us to where we are today. My law professor may have been a jerk (and believe me he was), but he passed down the knowledge of the generation before him: land and education. Let's not lose sight of that. 

Early Childhood Education Law Resources? Or Not.

This afternoon I am presenting on technology and law (what else, right?) to the Kentucky Infant - Toddler Institute. I was a high school teacher, so early childhood education is pretty far from my area of expertise. The only real expertise I have on this topic is simply because of my kids (it was Matthew's first day of Kindergartern, by the way, so I had to attach a picture from this morning). 

Anyway, where are the early childhood education law resources? I looked around a little on the net and found a few valuable things, but there is no textbooks out there on this. Not a lot of online guides. There seems to be some special education stuff, but generally it seems a relatively neglected area of the law. From a legal standpoint only, this is sort of a problem because there are a lot of legal complexities in early childhood, in particular. There are a lot of different types of providers out there, and differing legal systems might apply in differing situations. 

So, some enterprising young researcher out there with an early childhood background, here is a niche for you. We could use some help here. 

Why Don't Classrooms Look Like This?

This is a picture of our Lab Space (The Keep) in Dickey Hall at the University of Kentucky (notice the play-doh). We have students workspace in this room and a conference table and whatnot. We developed this room from a former computer lab for about a couple thousand (mostly of our own money).

So, I am sitting here (that's my laptop) trying to find the right room for my class of about 20 principal students to meet in this Fall. I don't want a classroom with those 1954 squeeze-your-butt-in-desks and I'm not a huge fan of the industrial square table room either. So, it struck me ... why don't our classrooms look like where I am sitting right now? I want a classroom full of couches! Maybe even a flatscreen on the wall. And plants. Why don't we have plants in our higher education classrooms? And, yeah, play-doh. 

I'm serious. Why don't our higher education classrooms look like this? 

Leaders v. Reformers - Mistaking the Gloss

There is a difference. I do not think they are mutually exclusive, but I think they are too often confused. This page, for instance, is a mix of reformers and leaders, but not necessarily both as they are improperly labeled. How can you call Robert Bobb a leader? He is an administrator, but his "intention" to lead change does not equate with leadership. Michelle Rhee, too, is much more a reformer than a leader. 

Yesterday, I got to spend the day with Carmen Coleman, the Superintendent in Danville Independent here in Kentucky. Carmen is a leader, then a reformer. Leading the district is the primary task, it just so happens the right path for the district is through reform. 

It annoys me that people like Michelle Rhee or most of the other names that get tossed around are called the "education leaders" of this country. That's, frankly, a load of B.S. Michelle Rhee is a leader in the reform movement, but is not an education leader in the same way that Carmen is. 

As we view the structure of our system, let's just not confuse the glossy paint of reform with the steel studs of leadership. The color of the walls will change frequently - but that the wall exists is thanks to leadership. 

An Education Technology Policy Job

As Policy Director at iNACOL - a professional association and advocacy organization for online learning, and a large player in the Virtual School environment. I would really like to see an educational lawyer in this job - and in particular one that has some touch with the educational law scholarly community ... so, I thought I would post it. 

Fellow CASTLE blogger Michael Barbour sent over the tip (for more info and a different take on the position, read the comments). If you have any interest in virtual schools or other online learning in K-12, he absolutely needs to be in your Reader. 

Diffusing the NCLB Bomb: A Final Conservative Federal Education Expansion

Today was inevitable, really. And, everyone knew it. Washington's plan was simply untenable. It could never work the way it was written. 

(No, not referring to the debt crisis and downgrade and, well, the plunge today (don't get me started, just go here, please)).  

Everyone knew NCLB's accountability provisions were a ticking bomb. They were never going to work. While some speculated that the bomb was intentional to blow-up public schools in favor of private and other options, that there was a hidden bomb in NCLB was unquestioned by even those with cursory knowledge of the law. 

Lately states, such as mine, were getting tired of the inevitable countdown to 0 (as in the total number of passing schools on the accountability indexes). The grumbles were growing louder, yet nothing happened in Washington (they were too busy messing with our credit score). In reality, there was never so much as serious talk of a NCLB reauthorization timetable. Reauthorization may still be two or more years away and by then the bomb might actually explode. 

So, today, the U.S. Department of Education took a big step. A unilaterial step. Perhaps an unauthorized step. Relevant quote:

The administration’s plan amounts to the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s. 

This is a complicated issue, so please don't think we are going to cover it all in this blog post. But, there are a few critical factors worth explaining:

1. This limits the role of the federal government. States, like Kentucky, will probably get to write their own accountability systems again. This brings the federal role more in line with the Tenth Amendment and the general concept of federalism in education. 

2. This expands the role of the federal government. Yes, contradictory I know. Even though an individual state will get to write their own plans, the federal government has sign-off authority. As was shown with Race-to-the-Top, the Feds are not above using that kind of authority for coercion. Already in their public statements on this change, it is very clear that this will be a coercion mechanism to get the kind of reform Washington wants. Coercing states is more in line with the spending power of the Constitution, but much less in line with the Tenth Amendment.  

3. The biggest expansion of the day, though, was of the power of the U.S. Department of Education. They are now front and center for education reform in this country. Many would argue (probably including me) that this is not their place not only under the Tenth Amendment, but also under generally understood principles of administrative law authorized by Article II (today was a possible infringement on Article I (ultimately, Article III might have to resolve this ... confusing enough for you?)). 

What does all this mean? I don't know. The federal role in education is probably expanding, but it is doing it through the back door. As such, few people are really noticing and those that do have few options because they are already in the house. Federal expansion is a bit of a bell that cannot be unrung. That the federal role is expanding ... is likely inevitable. Today was just a different route toward doing so that positioned the Department of Education (and not Congress, nor the States) as the central accountability mechanism for education in the United States. 

That they expanded today by actually helping states diffuse the bomb ... was creative and interesting. Because of that, a serious constitutional challenge might be avoided. In the next few weeks, we will likely see bills filed in Congress and new committee hearings and some pomp and circumstance against this - but, I would be surprised if this plan is not implemented and that this is not the framework for a reauthorization, whoever gets elected president next time. 

So, today the NCLB Bomb was largely diffused. Good. It needed to be. But, in doing so, the federal government's role was expanded once again. A final, ironic chapter in the conservatively sponsored NCLB Act.

"Purifying" the Internet in China

This news out of China today. It intends to offer free or low cost Net connections for children, but "filtrate away harmful information."

Good luck. Just ask American schools how well that seems to work. Heck, I was even at a school a couple weeks back that intentionally proxied their own servers - because even they couldn't live with the filters. 

No one knows filtering better than China (as I found out when there a couple months ago), but it doesn't seem to matter how thick you build the concrete ... the curious always seem to get through.  

Knowledge of the Business of Higher Education ... And Our Lack Thereof

Why do we not teach future faculty members anything about the business of higher education before we put them into the teaching jobs? It is an enormous deficiency in our knowledge base and I think it has real, negative effects on the institutions that hire us. 

I just wish I knew a lot more about running a higher education business than I do. I feel I basically have to learn all of that on the fly, and (honestly) sometimes I am making mistakes. 

For instance, recruiting and marketing. Increasingly, departments (especially mine) are having to do most of our own recruiting and marketing. I know little to nothing about these things, but they are vital to the health and prosperity of our department. To be honest, I wish I knew a little less about John Dewey and a little more about this. 

And, I think the implications are that many departments and programs are struggling with the actual business of running these places - leading to institutional weakness. I think this is particularly acute in the Research Universities that tend to hire folks like me ... relatively young, newly hooded, naive, inexperienced greenhorns. Don't get me wrong, some of these greenhorns have remarkable ideas -- and, perhaps, some of us will cure cancer or something (or help lead a technology revolution in our education systems ;). But, to do that, we need functional and economically healthy departments within which to work. Regional and private universities tend to hire a greater percentage of second-career professors. Presumably, these folks learned the business of something in their first career, and are capable of adapting some of these ideas. There is still a tremendous knowledge gap for these folks, and an ever greater knowledge gap on the research front, but purely from a business standpoint, they seem to have a bit of a leg-up. 

Across te board though, it seems at least to me, that more and more of that "economically healthy" work is falling to new professors. So, perhaps we should think about some formal attempt to prep them for these roles? 

I don't know. Just a thought on a late Sunday night to interrupt my grading.  

The Federal Role in Education ... Totally Confused

Can anyone make sense of this? The whole thing is a disaster. It feels like the Heritage Foundation is not even trying to be remotely accurate. 

Anyway, for what it's worth, here you go: Federalism in Education Made Simple

Kentucky ... You're Next

Kentucky ... We. Are. Coming. After. You.

Man the Cannon! Button down the Hatches! Hide the Children if you Must!

This is fair warning to each and all that proscribe to traditional education in Kentucky. You are in our sights ... and we are planning to bring the thunder.

This is just a snippet of what we do to states we have our eye on.

I am so, so proud to say that on this Leadership Day 2011 ... CASTLE has landed in Kentucky. We are here. We are ready. And we are going to drive change whether you like it or not.

#leadershipday11

Kudos to Scott McLeod & the Iowa Future Group for putting #5 together, as well as the incomparable XPLANE for doing the graphics and video. Scott explains and thanks here. While there are no current plans for a Kentucky version, we are beginning the conversations about raising some capital to fund it (if you are willing to help, please let me know). The Kentucky team has already released this STEM version, so you can get started there.

NCPEA Conference

I'm attending the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration's 65th annual summer conference in Portland Oregon.  I have to say that I really like Portland.

Today I visited the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' Pioneer Courthouse.  The courthouse was built in 1875.  It was very cool to be able to see it.  Here are a few facts about the 9th Circuit.  No cases were being heard this week, though.  The 9th Circuit has four courthouses, one in each of the following locations: Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, and Pasedena, CA.  The 9th Circuit includes Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, California, Arizona, Hawaii, North Mariana Islands and Guam.

There were a few legal topics at the conference.  My colleague Betty Kirby and I presented about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  David Alexander and Jennifer Sughrue presented on School Resource Officers in the Public Schools.  Richard Geisel presented on Garcetti's effect on the free speech rights of public school administers. Here's the link to the website with more information about it: http://www.emich.edu/ncpeaprofessors/

These sessions, in addition to hearing Yong Zhao (again) about global education, and the networking were the highlights of the conference for me.  There were also a lot of good sessions on technology use.  I was only able to attend one, but the others looked great.

I was initially skeptical about attending this conference, but since it turned out well, maybe I'll attend next summer in Kansas City.

My First Thought About Missouri's New Social Media Law ...

was that I am really, really happy I am not teaching at Mizzou right now (which was under discussion at low-levels at one point). I'm serious. That was my first thought. Not only do I not want to deal with this in my job, but more importantly, I don't want my kids in those schools. My sister went to Mizzou. It's close to home for me. I am a Cardinals fan to the core. And, I like that university and always held it as a place I could see myself at for the long-term. But, my first thought in seeing that new law ... glad I'm not at Mizzou.  

These kinds of decisions have real-life consequences, beyond even the present-day high-school classroom. This kind of stuff sends a message of who you are and who you want to be as a state. How can you be serious about trying to build a high-tech sector in Saint Louis when your leaders make statements like this one? How can you be serious about trying to keep your best and brightest in-state, when you are sending messages that you are going to restrict how the best and brightest talk to one another? 

Ultimately, these types of decisions, time and time and time again, are why Saint Louis is not Chicago (it should be, if you didn't know, but instead now-a-days I see it more frequently compared to Detroit). This is why the Washington University grads want to go live in New York or Chicago or California. Ultimately, this is why places lose in the global competition. South Korea is putting technology as fast as possible into student's hands ... Missouri is taking it away. So, why do economic numbers surprise us again? 

And, circling back, because I've kept my eye on them, I know that Mizzou's education leadership program has lost a lot of really good, young faculty members over the last few years. I can't help but think these types of things are related. 

School Policy ...

is a total legal blackhole. I don't even really know whether it can be brought under control in my lifetime. 

That is all. Just noting how big of a problem we are looking at here. Hope the education system never has to account for this quagmire. 

Education, Law & Copyright

Here is my latest lecture. This was delivered originally at the KASA Law & Policy conference in June. I rerecorded it for Education Law Association purposes, as I will be doing a podcast for their project to get podcast coverage of most topics in education law. 

Self-Defense in the Classroom

It is a real shame we have to talk about these kinds of things. I hate it. And, I hate when my students ask me about this topic very early in our courses together. There is clearly a lot of concern in the teaching force about protecting themselves against students. 

Here is the latest incident. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is an issue we don't really talk about in the textbooks ... but perhaps it is time that we need to address it more formally. I hate giving into this as the modus operandi, but it seems we have little choice. 

"Abbott XXI" and the State Constitutional End Game

The New Jersey Supreme Court has just issued what is, under my best count, its twenty-first opinion in the ongoing school finance litigation, Abbott v. Burke.  The total opinion (including the majority and separate opinions) is 215 pages, so an analysis will be forthcoming, but not today. 

Essentially, though, this is a remedial opinion reaffirming that the court meant what it said in its last remedial opinion about the levels of funding required in the target districts, meaning that the state legislature's recent deep cuts to education spending are violative of the state constitution.  The opinion ends with the court ordering the appropriation of an additional $500 million to the "Abbott districts" (the property-poor districts at the center of the suit in its current posture). 

I think this opinion is likely to hasten the constitutional confrontation that has been inevitable in New Jersey since the beginning of this 20-year saga.  The court here is nearing a constitutional "end game," where the elected legislators know that they will lose their jobs if they raise taxes to preserve school funding, but the court is basically trapped into demanding exactly that action based on its prior rulings.  If neither side blinks, then what?  Jailing individual legislators for contempt of court if they vote the wrong way? 

Local Control Cuts Both Ways

Last week, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down that state's "Commission Charter Schools" statute, which allowed the state Legislature to directly establish charter schools in districts where the voters had consistently rejected establishing them locally.  Whatever your views on the merits of charter schools, this decision is of note from a state constitutional law perspective for the way in which it elevates the governmental interest (or shibboleth, depending on your perspective) of "local control" to a constitutional compulsion. 

In striking down the charter school law, the court's 4-3 majority explained that local school boards in Georgia have "exclusive local control" of their districts' operations, including what schools shall be established.  The sole exception to this principle, the court explained, is found in the state constitution's "special schools" provision, which authorizes the state legislature to establish special schools "in such areas that may require them," subject to certain provisos limiting boded indebtedness to pay for such schools.  (For a copy of the current Georgia Constitution, see here.  The education article is Article VIII, and the relevant Section is Section V, beginning on page 60 of the pdf link).

The court held that the state's establishment of three charter schools of the typical, familiar variety (save one that limited enrollment to female students only) violated this principle of local control, and therefore the statute authorizing the schools was unconstitutional.  Facially so, in fact. 

We all are familiar with the fact that "local control" plays prominently as a governmental interest in helping governments to justify socioeconomic discrimination and pass the "rational basis" test under equal protection jurisprudence, but this opinion appears to see "local control" not as a legitimate interest that the state legislature may permissibly pursue, but rather as a constutionally required limitation on state legislation in education.  Local control has now evolved in Georgia to a requirement.     

However, from a school finance litigation perspective, the REALLY interesting bit of the opinion is this little gem:

"The constitutional history of Georgia could not be more clear that, as to general K-12 public education, local boards of education have the exclusive authority to fulfill one of the "primary obligation[s] of the State of Georgia," namely, "[t]he provision of an adequate public education for the citizens." Art. VIII, Sec. I, Par. I." (p. 3 of the slip opinion). 

I'm particularly intrerested in the implications of this quote.  If accepted as an operative holding in the court's opinion, it seems to mean that no suit for educational inadequacy may lie against the legislature or any other state-level entity in Georgia.  If one's right to "adequate education" (assuming such a right exists in Georgia) is violated, then it is the school district that is at fault, not the state.  This conclusion would turn education finance litigation as currently conceived on its head. 

Even if you are not interested in these issues of state constitutional interpretation, the opinion, which contains a lengthy and well-reasoned dissent, is well worth a read.