New Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has had a rough first few days. On Friday morning, she was supposed to make her first visit to a public school in Washington D.C., but she was blocked from entering by a group of protesters. The protesters physically blocked DeVos from reaching the entrance of Jefferson Academy, a middle school. One of them yelled, “She doesn’t represent anything they stand for” and another one, “Keep giving money to senators and find your way to positions, you should be proud of yourself.”

WATCH: Sec. Betsy DeVos physically blocked by protesters from entering DC school–turned away and left.
Video: @SweeneyABC pic.twitter.com/RAycuKEVgm

— ABC 7 News – WJLA (@ABC7News) February 10, 2017

DeVos and her driver turned around and left, but entered the school through another entrance and met with teachers, the principal, and the chancellor of D.C. public schools.

Earlier in the week, DeVos–or whoever runs her Twitter account–sent out a tweet about her first day on the new job.

Day 1 on the job is done, but we’re only getting started. Now where do I find the pencils? pic.twitter.com/0vRKF1opE9

— Betsy DeVos (@BetsyDeVos) February 9, 2017

What was probably meant as a cute question did not sit well with the public. A ton of Twitter users offered their answers.

@BetsyDeVos not in the thousands of public schools that can barely afford supplies. Looking forward to you cleaning that lil issue up.

— Erin Weaver (@ByErinWeaver) February 9, 2017

Many others pointed out that public schools are underfunded and that many teachers have to use their own money to buy pencils for the students.

@BetsyDeVos At the store. Something you should know: we teachers buy pencils and supplies for our classes with our OWN money.

— Robin McCauley Lynch (@RobinMcCauley) February 9, 2017

Others criticized DeVos’s earlier statement that guns could be necessary in some schools, because students could be threatened by grizzly bears.

.@BetsyDeVos He has them… pic.twitter.com/6UkaKaP0sN

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) February 9, 2017

Some were wondering what she was going to do with the pencils:

.@BetsyDeVos is this what you plan to do with your pencil while public school teachers work hard to educate and protect students? pic.twitter.com/fzyCPlhLkb

— Jaipreet Virdi (@jaivirdi) February 9, 2017

And yet others came up with ideas for how she could make some money to actually buy pencils:

@BetsyDeVos You worked a whole day but didn’t have anything to write with? Maybe you could hold a bake sale to buy some pencils.

— (((David Lytle))) (@davitydave) February 9, 2017

While it was a laughing matter for some, there are still concerns that the new Education Secretary is a billionaire who has no experience working in education or even attending a public school. But as the Washington Teacher’s Union said during an earlier, peaceful, gathering; if DeVos succeeds in her new role, everyone succeeds.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Replies to Betsy DeVos’s First Week appeared first on Law Street.

In the last few decades, highly publicized school shootings at places like Columbine and Sandy Hook, as well as a trend of violence on college campuses across the nation, have led to the proliferation of school surveillance techniques. Since these cases of violence have targeted specific schools, one would imagine that the strictest surveillance techniques would exist in schools with a history of violence.

That is not actually the case according to new research from Jason P. Nance, an associate professor of law at the University of Florida. He discovered that while there has been a stark increase in school surveillance in recent years, the practice was not applied equally across all schools. In fact, schools with a preponderance of students of color were more likely to have harsh surveillance practices, including metal detectors, locked gates, school police, and random sweeps.

 Current Trends in School Surveillance

The 1990s saw a rise in concerns about drug and gang-related violence, leading to an increase in integrating police–or “school resource officers”–and other surveillance technology into schools. These fears were later exacerbated by the high-profile shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, where two seniors murdered 12 students and one teacher before both committing suicide–billed then as “the deadliest high school shooting in US history.” Over the years, schools have compensated with an increase in strict punitive measures and “zero tolerance” policies, which require schools to hand out specific, harsh punishments like suspension or expulsion when students break particular rules. Additionally, surveillance systems designed to track and monitor students’ movements and specific behaviors are being implemented and utilized more than ever before.

In the first analysis of its type ever conducted, Jason P. Nance, of the University of Florida Levin College of Law, found a clear and consistent pattern in how surveillance techniques were applied to schools nationally. Nance gained authorization access to a restricted database from the U.S. Department of Education–the School Survey on Crime and Safety conducted from 2009-10 and 2013-14–and was able to examine surveillance techniques pre- and post- the Sandy Hook school shooting. Even after controlling for a variety of factors such as school crime, neighborhood crime, school disciplinary and behavioral problems, and other student demographics, Nance’s research found that the concentration of students of color was a predictor in whether or not the schools had more intense security techniques.

Additionally, Nance investigated the major, student-caused instances of violence in the last 25 years using informations from a CNN archive and federal data on demographics of the particularly relevant schools. The overwhelming majority, roughly 62 percent, of incidence of major violence in schools occurred in ones that serve mostly white students. Such findings demonstrate a much greater problem in racial inequalities in the public educational system. Nance noted that systemic racial disparities exist in special-education placements, gifted-and-talented programs, and teacher expectations of academic success, with African Americans experiencing the highest educational inequalities.

Criminalizing Student Behavior

The act of arresting schoolchildren and treating them as if they are violent criminals has become a disturbing trend in schools across the country. With the constant surveillance tactics employed, whether it be drug sniffing dogs, police officers, random searches, or high-resolution security cameras, schools are arguably a burgeoning police state, one that is being controlled and directed. Police patrol many school hallways across the nation, making even normal childhood behavior seem criminal. In 2010, police gave close to 300,000 Class C misdemeanor tickets to students in Texas. There were also reports of a student with an IQ below 70 being pepper sprayed because he did not understand police instructions. Moreover, an incident in Columbia, South Carolina went viral in the fall of 2015 when a student refused to hand over her cellphone, resulting in the school deputy wrestling her out of her chair and hurling her across the classroom floor. The student who filmed and posted the events was eventually arrested. All of these examples illustrate a disturbing trend.

Such arrests are not uncommon in the state of North Carolina, where roughly 1,200 students are charged each year with “disturbing school.” The state law, which makes it a crime to “disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school” or “to act in an obnoxious manner,” carries a jail sentence of up to 90 days or a $1,000 fine. The charge has been used against students as young as age seven. Currently, at least 22 states and many cities have such a law, though the degree of stringency varies greatly from state to state. Moreover, in South Carolina black students are four times more likely to be charged with disturbing school than their white peers. Defiance is an integral part of adolescence, but placing students in jail for swearing or refusing to comply with an adult’s request turns normal child behavior into delinquent behavior.

Many advocates contend that such disturbing school laws were implemented once black students were allowed to integrate into white classrooms, as a way of maintaining informal segregation under the guise of “law and order.” Once students are arrested, their ability to achieve at the same level is greatly diminished. According to a 2006 study by criminologist Gary Sweeten, students who have been arrested are nearly twice as likely to drop out of school even if they never go to court–regardless of GPA or prior offenses–and students who actually go to court are four times more likely to drop out. Considering the profound consequences such an event can have on a child’s future, it seems a law and order focus may be doing more damage than good.

Monitoring and Tracking Students

Another extreme method schools are utilizing to monitor students is Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). RFID, which is often used to identify and monitor livestock and other animals, uses tags and readers to monitor when students check out library books, register for classes, or even pay for school lunches. States such as Missouri, California, and Texas have utilized the technology through experimental pilot programs in some manner or another, such as door access on school buses or embedding the chips in student clothing. While its use was eventually squashed by parents and the American Civil Liberties Union in state of Texas, technology similar to RFID is still alive and well in other states. Other experimental programs have even utilized cameras to track and monitor students’ eating habits in an effort to mitigate childhood obesity. Some schools have even used wristwatches that monitor students’ heart rate, physical movement, and sleeping habits.

Big Brother entering the classroom brings up valid concerns; are we simply conditioning students to believe that tracking them is completely normal, acceptable, and even mandatory? In a world of consumerism and behaviorism, students, workers, shoppers, and voters are all seen in the same manner: passive, conditionable objects. Such practices may infringe heavily on due process rights, treating citizens as compliant subjects in a surveillance state.

Courtesy of [Daniel R. Blum via Flickr]

When School Becomes Jail

Schools have been struggling to find the ideal balance when creating a safe, supportive, and secure learning environment in recent years. Chicago Public Schools, for example, approved high-definition surveillance camera installation in 14 schools in 2011 for a $7 million price tag, despite being significantly cash-strapped at the time. After a pilot test at a high school, Chicago Public Schools stated that misconduct dropped 59 percent, arrests dropped by 69 percent, and drop-out rates decreased. The approval ended up coming in $200,000 under budget, but it certainly illustrates the trends Nance is studying.

Strict surveillance practices are firmly in place in the Los Angeles public school system, where random screenings using metal detector wands are employed in all secondary schools, grades 6-12. This program has been in place for more than two decades and also includes daily random locker searches, but it has recently come under fire from teachers, civil rights groups, and educational organizations. In schools with no history of violence, it seems to be counterintuitive to employ such stringent tactics in the name of safety. According to a review in 2011 of all available literature from the past 15 years regarding the use of metal detectors in schools, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the use of metal detectors had any positive influence on student behavior and school environments. In New York City, some public schools with metal detectors cannot even get students through the screening process in time for the start of school.

Despite claims of limited efficacy, metal detectors and surveillance techniques still have their champions. The Chief of Police for the Boston Public Schools Eric Weston noted in 2015 that metal detectors changed things by helping to keep firearms out of schools and reducing the number of weapons found on campus. While acknowledging the potential psychological toll constant use of metal detectors may create, Weston believes that overall the use of them makes students feel safer. Moreover, the public response after a highly publicized, violent school incident, is to increase security measures in schools to prevent such an atrocity from occurring again.

 Efficacy of Surveillance Techniques

While some may champion police presence in schools and the use of surveillance systems like metal detectors, such techniques are not without critics. The effects of such severe practices on student psyche is stark. When compared to a school with no metal detectors, students at a school with metal detectors feel and understand that the general public views them as criminals automatically. Evidence also shows that when students are in such harsh environments, academic performance and positive school climates do not necessarily increase. An over-reliance on security measures diminishes students’ feelings of trust and safety; when students are subjected to punitive tactics in school, the likelihood that students feel comfortable being there decreases significantly. Moreover, science has also demonstrated in recent years that a teenager’s brain, for example, is far more receptive to rewards than to punishment, and sections of the brain that control impulses and judgment are still a work-in-progress.

The result is a continued criminalization of certain types of students, namely students of color. For example, in Texas, when looking at clear-cut offenses like the use of a weapon, African American students were no more likely to get in trouble than other students; however, when it came to subjective “disturbing school” offenses, they were far more likely to be disciplined. After controlling for over 80 variables, race was a reliable predictor of which students were disciplined.

Even when there is little to no evidence to demonstrate that such practices actually create environments where students can thrive, cities, states, and the federal government continue to invest in such programs. Bringing in police officers and placing youth under constant surveillance with little to no privacy creates an institution that feels more like a prison than a welcoming educational environment. Advocates note that these practices are likely creating criminals, rather than productive, healthy citizens.

Conclusion

Educators are quick to note that combating violence in schools and deterring weapons starts from the root; students have to feel safe at school. Relying on surveillance tactics and punitive measures to enforce discipline creates an environment based on fear, not mutual respect. Investing in student relations should be as much as a priority as investing in high-definition security cameras. As Nance noted in his research, these stringent surveillance practices are sending students a very clear message: white students deserve more privacy and leeway than nonwhite students. It’s critical to ensure students are safe, but practices such as these may merely exacerbate the significant racial tensions plaguing the nation rather than helping to rectify violence in schools.

Resources

Primary

UF Levin College of  Law University of Florida: Student Surveillance , Racial Inequalities, and Implicit Racial Bias

Journal of School Health: Impacts of Metal Detector Use in Schools: Insights From 15 Years of Research

National Education Association: Alternatives to Zero Tolerance Policies

Additional

The Atlantic: When School Feels Like Prison

Huffington Post: Are America’s Schools Breeding Grounds for Compliant Citizens?

The Atlantic: How America Outlawed Adolescence

The Guardian: The US Schools With Their Own Police

The Journal: Missouri District Pilots RFID Door and School Bus Access

Wired: Tracking School Children With RFID Tags? It’s All About The Benjamins

Salon.com: Big Brother Invades Our Classrooms

Christian Science Monitor: A Backlash Against Los Angeles Schools as High-Security Fortresses

ABC 7: HD Security Cameras Installed at 14 CPS Schools

MASSLIVE: Metal Detectors in Schools: Boston’s Success Story

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Brother Watching?: Current Trends in School Surveillance appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #2 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #3 University of Chicago Law School appeared first on Law Street.

If you watch a lot of “Law and Order” you might be under the impression that courtroom stunts are common–that pulling out props or making grand gestures are the norm. But in reality, stunts are relatively rare, and successful stunts are rarer, which makes the fact that attorney Nick Rowley dressed up in a chicken suit during a closing argument and won a lawsuit brought against the Kern County School District in California, all the more impressive.

The case was Mitchell Carter v. Kern County School District and focused on the events that transpired at Bakersfield High School in 2010. According to Courtroom View Network, Mitchell Carter, a student at the time, dressed up in a chicken suit at a football rally to make fun of their rival Clovis West High School, which has a golden eagle mascot. He was encouraged to do so by the administration. When Carter went out in the suit the first time, he was attacked by students from Bakersfield. Carter tried to back out of entering the rally a second time, but says that he was compelled to go back out by the administration. Carter claims that a school administrator warned that he may have to pay the chicken suit’s rental fee if he didn’t go back out.

When Carter, dressed in the chicken suit, entered the rally the second time he was rushed by Bakersfield High School students and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He now suffers from psychological problems, has a hard time keeping up with college classes, and will need to pay for growth hormone therapy for the rest of his life because his pituitary gland was damaged. In addition to accusing the school of pushing him to do the stunt, Carter also claimed that the school didn’t break up the fight that caused his brain trauma in a timely fashion.

Rowley said: “He was put in the most hated, personified figure at that time: the opposing team’s mascot…They dressed him up and had him play the fool.” Here’s a video of Rowley explaining the situation, chicken suit and all, courtesy of Courtroom View Network:

While the school district’s attorneys tried to argue that Carter picked fights with members of the team, the jury sided with Carter, finding the school district “100 percent liable for the student’s injuries.” The school district’s settlement with Carter totals $10.5 million.

Rowley donned the chicken costume about 20 minutes into his closing argument, to make a point about why Carter put his suit on in the first place. Rowley pointed out it wasn’t for personal glory, or attention, but because of his school spirit–Carter went through the humiliating act of wearing a chicken suit because his school asked him to. While the defense objected to Rowley’s use of the chicken suit, its rhetorical heft was undoubtable. While props in the courtroom don’t always work, Rowley’s calculated risk clearly paid off. After all, it’s not every day you see an attorney put on a chicken suit in the middle of a courtroom…at least not outside of a TV show.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Clucks Given: Attorney Dresses up in Chicken Suit During Closing Argument appeared first on Law Street.

Trump University was a fraud, a lie, and a scheme. That’s what former employees at the school said in testimony revealed on Tuesday; the statements were given as a part of a lawsuit against the so-called university.

But “Trump University” wasn’t a real university at all, and the students did not get to learn the secrets behind Trump’s enormous real estate success. The now-public documents paint a picture of a money-obsessed and unscrupulous business that used high-pressure sales tactics to attract students.

The ongoing lawsuit was filed by discontented former students, and the documents that were released on Tuesday contain statements from former managers, as well as the handbook salespeople used to entice students. The instructions reveal how they were supposed to sell expensive classes to struggling students using sales psychology techniques, and to lure them in by claiming that Trump would play an active role in their education–but that simply wasn’t true.

Salespeople were also told to encourage everyone to pay with their credit cards, and even to open up as many credit cards as possible: “It’s O.K., just max out your credit card,” a former event manager named Corrine Sommer remembered salespeople telling prospective students.

The entire case has become even more convoluted after Trump attacked and insulted the judge presiding over the case. U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel was the one who ordered the release of the documents, as a response to a request by the Washington Post. Trump boiled over and called the judge “hostile,” a “hater,” and said that he is “we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine.” Curiel, for the record, was born in Indiana.

Hillary Clinton soon jumped in and used the latest development in the Trump University lawsuit to attack Trump on Twitter. She said that the scandal is more proof that Trump is unfit to be President.

Another Trump University practice, according to its own employees: target struggling families to fleece them. pic.twitter.com/VUH18SpBlD

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 1, 2016

FACT: Trump University identified those most vulnerable and then targeted them with predatory marketing tactics. https://t.co/xDeDI1KqOr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 1, 2016

At her rally in New Jersey on Wednesday Clinton said: “[Trump] is trying to scam America the way he scammed all those people at Trump University.”

You can see the Trump documents for yourself here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump University Tactics Revealed: Former Employees Call it a “Scam” appeared first on Law Street.

For centuries, there have been a handful of professions that are respected and privileged around the world: doctor, lawyer, and professor all come to mind. These professions are often thought of in broad stereotypes–elderly men sitting in wood-lined studies, wearing jackets with patches on the elbows, and heading off to golf games at three in the afternoon. In reality, all three of these professions have diversified over the past fifty years, yet we still think of them as representative of the upper class. While medical and legal salaries are still generous and relatively stable, the same cannot be said for academia. Success as a professor is now inextricably linked to receiving tenure (a permanent job contract), without which professors are often relegated to “visiting” or “assistant/adjunct” professor status. Without the protection of tenure, adjunct professors are constantly vulnerable and rarely get the support and resources they need to put their best foot forward in the classroom. Read on for a look at the realities of being a professor in America.

What is tenure?

In the American collegiate system, professors receive tenure after several years of teaching at a given institution, usually three years at community colleges and six to seven years at four-year colleges. Although tenure was designed to protect the academic freedom and economic stability of professors, many education experts argue that it promotes lackluster teaching, as professors cease to engage with their students as soon as they receive tenure. Tenure is not a lifetime job guarantee, but a school administration cannot dismiss a tenured professor unless they present sufficient evidence that the professor is incompetent or has behaved inappropriately, or that an academic department must be closed for financial reasons. Although most professors enter the teaching field with tenure as their ultimate goal, the number of tenured professors in the United States has been steadily declining in recent years. Colleges rely increasingly on part-time or non-tenure-track professors to fill their open positions, because they can hire and fire faculty on a rotating basis. A non-tenure-track contract is designed to hire for the short term, and while some PhD students embark on the non-tenure-track by choice, a majority view non-tenure-track positions as an interim until they can switch to the tenure track. Unfortunately, the more reliant colleges become on non-tenure-track professors, the fewer tenure track positions are opened. Non-tenure-track contracts let colleges save money, as they are paying professors “per course” as opposed to the fixed salary that tenured professors receive. According to Forbes contributor and Professor David Kroll,

Rather than paying a professor $75,000 plus benefits, you can now hire from the ranks of unemployed scientists a no-benefits PhD at $3,000-$4,500 per 3 credit hour class per semester. I have seen some tenure-track faculty actually be threatened by their supervisors with being replaced by such adjunct faculty if they can’t score grant funding. The abuse of adjunct faculty by US universities is a travesty.

A 2014 report by the U.S. House of Representatives revealed that a large portion of non-tenure-track professors live below the poverty line, whereas their tenured colleagues receive a significant and stable salary. The alleged exploitation of non-tenure-track faculty has flown largely under the radar in recent political debates over American higher education. The Obama administration has worked tirelessly to promote higher education–aiming to make it affordable and inclusive, encouraging as many students as possible to enroll. The introduction of the College Scorecard this year gave students access to a “data dump of epic proportions” but it doesn’t tell them anything about the professors who teach at a given school.

This is problematic for many reasons. For example according to Adrianna Kezar’s Delphi Project, students taught primarily by adjunct professors are more likely to drop out. According to an interview Kezar gave to The Atlantic last year:

This high attrition rate has nothing to do with the quality of instruction adjuncts provide; it is entirely a function of the compromised working conditions adjuncts face…universities do not give adjuncts the basic resources they need to properly teach their courses, such as sample syllabi or learning objectives. Since most departments hire adjuncts at the last minute, they are often inadequately prepared to enter the classroom. Universities do not provide adjuncts with office space, making it difficult for them to meet with students outside class. To make matters worse, many adjuncts teach at several colleges to make ends meet: Commuting—sometimes between great distances—further reduces the time they can devote to individual students.

The United States is graduating more students than ever before, yet there are concerns that we’re not paying attention to who is teaching those students and how well they are compensated for their efforts.

Who Defends Non-Tenure-Track Professors?

The Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW), an umbrella organization comprised of various academic unions and advocacy groups, has aimed to address the unjust nature of the existing tenure system. CAW has conducted various surveys of faculty across the nation and has published a series of reports condemning the inequality of the current academic system.

But the majority of CAW’s research, which concludes that pay is too low and there is little opportunity for advancement for adjunct professors, has been ignored by college administrations and politicians alike. Most lawmakers focus on public K-12 education when discussing tenure, balancing the interests of taxpayers and teachers unions. Higher learning is often left off the docket at town hall debates and round table discussions on whether abandoning tenure is the next great reform in education.

Although some adjuncts prefer the flexibility of a short-term contract, the majority of those surveyed in University of Michigan study were concerned with job security and the potential for professional growth.  The study also found that non-tenure-track faculty often felt they were disrespected or excluded in the workplace, suggesting that tenure-track professors rarely welcome their adjunct colleagues into their departments–perhaps because they fear they will be replaced by adjuncts, as Kroll suggested.

Tenure in K-12 Education

In public K-12 schools, tenure (which is usually received after three years of teaching) protects teachers from being fired without just cause. Though tenure is meant to protect teachers and reward them for positive work, parents and educational reformers often worry that it protects bad teachers while preventing more qualified teachers from entering the school district. Teachers’ unions have historically defended tenure, arguing that it protects teachers from discrimination and unwarranted criticism. In October, New York teachers unions sought to dismiss a case that would make it easier for school districts to fire teachers and extend the number of years necessary to receive tenure from three to four. The judge denied the motion to dismiss the case and it will move forward in the coming months.

The case argues that tenure violates students’ civil rights because inefficient  teachers receive job protection in some of the most disadvantaged schools in the country. In the case of K-12 education, cases are often fought between the teachers unions and a coalition of parents–each side is well-organized, committed, and can find political allies relatively easily. Almost every municipality has its own teachers union, which feed into larger regional and national union structures. By contrast, academia’s umbrella union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), only has chapters in a few dozen of the thousands of American colleges across the nation. AAUP aims to advocate for professors but it has nowhere near the political sway of K-12 teachers’ unions.

What are the arguments for preserving the current system?

Advocates for preserving the tenure track argue that it is the most effective defense against “anti-intellectualism” in academia. Without tenure, professors may be fired simply for having controversial opinions–Professor Jonathan R. Cole of Columbia University explains:

Tenure grew up in the first two decades of the 20th century in response to the abusive use of power by university presidents and Trustees who were free to fire professors for almost any reason, most often because of their social and political views…in the past decade, strong opposition to the War in Iraq and Afghanistan led to sanctions and dismissals of non-tenured faculty at American universities…f we demand conformity and orthodoxy among our professor, and we fail to protect them when they play the critical role that is at the heart of a great university, then the quality of our institutions of higher learning will inevitably decline.

Proponents of the tenure track also argue that providing tenure retains good teachers and attracts teachers of a higher quality to a given school, although this argument is often applied to K-12 schools rather than higher education. Tenure provides economic stability that makes the teaching profession more attractive, encouraging our brightest minds to give back to the next generation through teaching.

All of these arguments present valid reasons for preserving tenure, but critics worry that none of them address why tenure-track academia has become such an exclusive club in the United States. If tenure is such a beneficial system, why are universities so hesitant to expand it? Universities have the right to deny tenure if they find the candidate to be a bad professor, but if they are turning away qualified candidates merely to cut costs, the tenure system appears to have strayed far from its original goals.

Conclusion

In the twenty-first century, higher education has shifted from an option to almost an inevitable step in the lives of many high school students. As we send more and more students off to four-year colleges, it is critical we understand exactly where their tuition money is going and what they are paying for when they enroll in a course. Will they be greeted by a professor who is well-prepared, enthusiastic, and supported by the administration or by a professor who can barely present a coherent lesson–either because tenure has left them complacent or because the stressful nature of adjunct teaching has left them physically and mentally exhausted? We owe to it both students and teachers to create environments where talent is recognized and rewarded.  The tenure system needs to be debated and reformed both within individual universities and on a national level.  Unless we open this dialogue soon, there’s concern that we’ll see American universities mutate from beacons of learning and opportunity into inefficient programs that value cost-efficiency over education.

Resources

Primary

U.S. House of Representatives: The Just In Time Professor: A Staff Report Summarizing eForum Responses on the Working Conditions of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education

Additional

AFT Higher Education: The Growth of Full-Time Nontenure-Track Faculty

National Education Association: The Truth about Tenure in Higher Education

The  Atlantic: The Adjunct Revolt: How Poor Professors Are Fighting Back

Forbes: Top 10 Reasons Being A University Professor Is A Stressful Job

Inger Bergom and Jean Waltman: Satisfaction and Discontent: Voices of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

AFT: How Due Process Protects Teachers and Students

The Washington Examiner: Unions Suffer Loss in Teacher Tenure Court Case

A Coalition on the Academic Workforce: A Portrait of Part-Time Faculty Members: A Summary of Findings on Part-Time Faculty Respondents to the Coalition on the Academic Workforce Survey of Contingent Faculty Members and Instructors (2012)

Slate: Finishing School: The Case for Getting Rid of Tenure

The Huffington Post: Why Academic Tenure is Essential for Great Universities

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Professor in Name Only: Teaching Without Tenure in American Universities appeared first on Law Street.

Rene Hoover, whose son Alex suffers from a terminal heart condition, refuses to allow her son to return to school in fear that school officials will not allow him to die naturally. She’s now locked in a battle with the school over how to proceed and best care for her son.

Fourteen-year-old Alex Hoover is autistic and suffers from aortic mitral valve stenosis, which occurs when the aortic valve narrows and restricts blood flow. Hoover has endured years of hospitalizations, four catheterization procedures, and continues to receive hospice care twice a week for his condition. Alex’s mother told the Decatur Daily that she does not want to put her son through another procedure. Although doctors may be able to help prolong Alex’s life if he were to go into cardiac arrest and be revived, his mother believes that his quality of life would be greatly diminished.

Rene explained:

That would be the rest of his life, surgeries and treatments. As a kid with autism, it is very hard on him mentally and physically because he doesn’t understand. Just typical doctors’ appointments are extremely hard on him. For my son, I choose quality, peace and happiness over that.

Alex’s autism has hindered his ability to speak, and because of that his mother obtained an advance directive to guarantee that medical professionals “do not resuscitate” if Alex were to go into cardiac arrest.

But the problem is that Limestone County school board officials have refused to honor the advance directive. Do not resuscitate orders only apply to individuals 19 or older in the state of Alabama. With the lack of a state of federal policy on how schools should handle a situation like the Hoover’s, the school administration has decided to follow standard medical procedure. Rene Hoover requested that she attend classes with Alex for a few hours each week to ensure that she can make medical decisions for him, but the school declined based on a policy about how much time parents can spend on campus. Rene said in response:

My child has a right to be there just like any other child in that school … For him to not be able to go to school and finish out the last days that he has, it breaks my heart.

From a policy standpoint, the school administration is put in a tough position here. However, the administration could be doing more to protect Alex and his mother’s wishes for him as members of the school community. Obviously the nature of Alex’s situation is unique and devastating, and there is no question that he deserves to spend the remainder of his life happy with his friends in school. The school has an opportunity here to set the standard for how schools around the country respond to the unique needs of students (and their families) with illnesses.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Mom Battles School Over Treatment of Terminally Ill Son appeared first on Law Street.

Just two days after the horrific mass shooting at Umpqua Community College, where nine people were killed and nine were injured, four California high school students were arrested after their detailed plan to shoot students and faculty members at Summerville High School in Tuolumne, California was uncovered.

Officials say the plot was revealed on Wednesday when a group of students alerted a teacher that they overheard several students discussing a plan to open fire on the school at an upcoming event. The sheriff’s department was contacted by Summerville High School administrators regarding the students who were making threats. The high school officials reported to authorities that three students were planning to carry out an attack on them. During their investigation, detectives discovered that a fourth student was involved in the plot as well.

Authorities found a list of names that the students had of who they planned to kill. Tuolumne County Sheriff Jim Mele said the students confessed “that they were going to come on campus and shoot and kill as many people as possible.” The students were taken into custody on Saturday. Police officials say that the students’ plan was in its beginning stages and they were in the process of obtaining the weapons that they wanted to use. The sheriff’s department said in a Facebook post:

The suspects plan was very detailed in nature and included names of would be victims, locations and the methods in which the plan was to be carried out.

Because the students are juveniles, their names will not be released, but they were identified as all male. The four students have been arrested for conspiracy to commit an assault with deadly weapons. This is a very terrifying time for the students and faculty at Summerville. Parents are terrified as well for the safety of their children. Kristin Wilson, who has a daughter attending Summerville High, stated,  “I can’t imagine getting a phone call that something like that had happened at that school.” Luckily the plot was caught in its beginning phase and no one was harmed.

Summerville High parents, however, are still unhappy about the situation because they were not notified of the incident until the following day. Shannon Duckworth has two children who attend Summerville High and only knew about the incident because her son told her through a text message. Duckworth stated, “I got a text from my son who lives in Washington asking me what’s going on about this shooting plot. What shooting plot?…We should’ve had full disclosure.” Other parents expressed similar concerns.

A motive for the shooting at Summerville has not yet been determined. Authorities plan to talk more with the teens who created the plot to get further information. Eric Hovatter, an assistant district attorney, stated,

It is clear from past history such as Columbine and Sandy Hook, as well as other recent events in Oregon, that children are willing and capable of planning and carrying out acts of violence against students and teachers on school grounds. While it is easy to say that could never happen in Tuolomne County, the public and local law enforcement must remain vigilant, as they did here. That the suspects are young does not minimize the gravity of the conduct nor the potential for great harm to many innocent people.

There have been 45 school shootings in 2015 alone, many of which didn’t make the news. Gun violence is affecting students everywhere–thankfully this story didn’t end in tragedy.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Shooting Plot Discovered: Four California High School Students Arrested appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best of the week from lawyers and law students on Twitter in the slideshow below.

Lawyer’s Lunch

Can’t seem to get out of this courtroom this morning. Hope they are planning on serving lunch. #lawyering http://t.co/uOx6sTZb8X

— Pabst Law Firm (@Pabstlaw) June 11, 2015

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

I recently went to my cousin’s high school graduation. As I rode with her to the civic center where the grand event would take place, I informed her that I had every intention of embarrassing her by being the person who cheered and whistled (or, since I can’t whistle, making whistle-like sounds) when they called her name despite the fact that they would clearly request at the beginning of the graduation to hold all cheering and applause until the end.

She told me she was fine with me doing this so long as I met one requirement: I could only cheer for her if someone made a lot of noise for any of the graduates before her.

I’d like to take a minute here to thank Emi for being smart. Since she graduated at the top of her class, very few students went before her. Which means that the cheering did not start until later in the program. Which means I kept my big mouth shut when her name was called. And that’s good because apparently you can get in a lot of trouble for screaming like a banshee in the middle of a dignified graduation ceremony.

All Those S’s in Mississippi Must Stand For Sssssshh!

Before Superintendent Jay Foster started reading names at the Senatobia High School graduation, he warned everyone that they better shut up until all the graduates’ names had been read. After all, Mississippi and dignified go hand in hand (is that the first time anybody has ever said that?), and he wanted this dignity reflected in the ceremony.

Now, as a member of a large family, I have been to way too many graduations. I have had to force myself to stay awake through some truly awful speeches and long lists of people of whom I only knew one. I can walk you through the steps of a graduation. And if there is one thing I know, it is that no matter how nicely you ask, there are going to be screamers in the audience.

Courtesy of Giphy.

(Disclaimer: the graduations I attend tend to be at small, Southern, extremely country schools, so if more ritzy schools don’t have this problem, please excuse my ignorance. Also, please excuse my earlier dig at Mississippi, where I am sure people really are generally dignified. But I’m from Alabama, and Mississippi jokes are all we have.)

Anyway, I have yet to hear of a school properly shushing the rowdy crowds that graduations tend to attract. That is, until I learned what Foster did when people disobeyed his direct orders.

You see, Foster was not joking when he told people to hold their applause. A few people must have thought he was, though. Because they cheered. And all sorts of chaos began.

Courtesy of Giphy.

As the ceremony progressed, the people who cheered when told not to cheer were escorted out. Okay. A little tough, but understandable. And it sent others the message. After all, only four people had to be asked to leave. Assuming the graduating class had more than a handful of graduates, that is not all that bad. So mission accomplished, Mr. Foster. Good job!

Wait! You don’t think that was enough punishment? You don’t think it will stop people from cheering at next year’s ceremony? But what else could you possibly do to teach them this valuable lesson on respect?

Hmm. I hadn’t thought about tracking three of them down and going to the police to press charges against them for disturbing the peace. That will teach them!

Foster thought of it, though. And more than just thinking about it, he actually did it.

What Will the Verdict Be?

Can cheering ever lead to an actual charge? (One which, by the way, could be punishable with up to six months in jail and fines of up to $500.)

We may never know. Because on Monday, the school district decided to drop the case–a day before the court appearances were set and more than three weeks after the infamous ceremony. And I don’t know how I feel about this. In order to sort through my feelings, I made a pros and cons list.

Pros of dropping the case:

• The school will not be wasting their own time or that of the defendants and the court with a case they probably do not have much chance of winning. After all, in the words of one of the defendant’s lawyers, “You don’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That said, you are entitled to clap.”
• They will stop getting the bad press associated with their actions, which many for some reason believe to be too harsh.
• They could avoid a lawsuit or two from the harassed cheerers.
• People might think a little bit better about Mississippi in general.
• It is just plain right–and smart–to do.

Cons of dropping the case:  

• People might find out that charges won’t be pressed, and so they might actually risk the wrath of the school district next year and–I don’t even want to think about it–clap in excitement for the accomplishments of somebody they love even if it is rude to the rest of the attendants.

After reviewing my list, I see that there is a clear winner. Should we really be encouraging all those cheerers by not pressing charges against them? I don’t think so. Stop being so soft on these criminals, people. If we let them get away with things like this, we might not ever get a quiet graduation. And that is a thought just not worth contemplating.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Superintendent Hates Fun, Presses Charges Against Cheerers appeared first on Law Street.

From sorority secrets to celebrity chicken thefts, the Best of the Week from Law Street was truly bizarre. The number one article of the week, from Anneliese Mahoney, details a new lawsuit from Phi Sigma Sigma alleging that a former member, whom they can’t identify because of anonymous online postings, has leaked closely guarded secrets. The number two article of the week, from Alexis Evans, is an interesting look at the increasing–and increasingly weird–school dress codes across the country, and the third most-read article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, is a funny take on Mila Kunis’ continued legal problems over an alleged chicken theft in the Ukraine. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 Phi Sigma Sigma Sorority Girl Sued For Releasing These Secrets

Sororities, and Greek Life organizations in general, gain much of their prestige from tradition and history. As a result, certain traditions and secrets are kept under lock and key, and members are trusted to keep it that way. But now, one former sorority girl may have to pay a big price for violating that sacred trust. Read full article here.

#2 Are Schools Going Too Far With These Dress Code Rules?

Fashion is meant to be a form of self expression, but if you’re currently a teenage girl in high school that expression might be seriously limited due to strict dress code restrictions. Of course making sure there are no visible butt cracks, nipples, or genitals is a must for school administrators, but when bare shoulders, backs, and thighs are considered just as taboo there’s a serious problem. Read full article here.

#3 Star’s Legal Battles Over Childhood Chicken Theft Continue

I am a busy person, which means I don’t get to spend hours at a time following the latest Hollywood gossip. I can usually survive without keeping up with the Kardashians and the Bieber and so on. However, every once in a while, I stumble across a celebrity scandal so interesting that I question everything I thought I knew about myself and begin to wonder why I ever do anything other than watch E!. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The world’s biggest charitable bike ride will be taking over the streets of New York City for the thirty-eighth time on May 3, 2015. The TD Five Boro Bike Tour, run by the non-profit organization Bike New York, attracts 32,000 cyclists from across the globe to its major annual event. Participants experience all five boroughs of the city on a beautiful 40-mile, car-free ride, all united in the name of charity. Teams raise money and awareness for more than 60 partner charities and causes.

Team Partnership With Children is participating in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour this year with a mission; riding to help New York City school children succeed academically and emotionally by providing comprehensive, on-site counseling services at K-12 schools throughout the city.

Read More: Team Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children (PWC) is a New York City-based organization that provides support and resources to students and schools to combat the stress that children growing up in poverty may experience. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, and the organization works with over 17,000 public school students to ensure that they arrive at school each day ready to learn.

The money raised by Team Partnership With Children at the TD Five Boro Bike Tour will not only help to further that goal, but will also support Bike New York’s mission. Given the focus on improving the lives of everyday New Yorkers–particularly children–the partnership between these effective organizations is a natural fit. Click here to support Team Partnership With Children in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour.

While it’s certainly grown over the years, the TD Five Boro Bike Tour isn’t a new event by any means. It began as part of an effort to teach New York’s youth about the benefits of cycling and bicycle safety. The program ended with a ride around the five boroughs in an attempt to explore the urban landscape in a new way. The program was a success, and as New York became more bike friendly, it continued to grow. Now the event is capped at 32,000 participants and welcomes riders from all over the country and the world. True to its name, the route does involve going through all five boroughs, and includes rides through Central Park and over the Pulaski Bridge. In order to further guarantee the safety of all its riders, the tour now involves blocking off the route so the riders can ride freely and without the fear of cars. Mayor Bill de Blasio praised the event, saying:

New York is at the forefront of making streets safe and accessible for all pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…More and more New Yorkers are utilizing bikes for transportation and recreation, and Bike New York has been an important ally in teaching cyclists of all ages and skill levels the fundamentals of biking in urban environments and how to ride with confidence and greater regard for street safety.

The money raised for Bike New York during the Tour goes to benefit the lessons and programs that it provides to 16,000 New Yorkers annually. As Bike New York puts it, the event is an opportunity “for the global cycling community to come together to grab life by the handlebars and ride for a reason.”

The President and CEO of Bike New York, Ken Podziba, explained the motivation for the event, stating:

Since the first Tour in 1977, we’ve been reminding the world that the streets are public spaces. Bikes are as welcome and deserving of a place on the blacktop as they are on the greenways, and we’re empowering New Yorkers with that knowledge and the know-how to put it to use and rediscover their rights and their City.

The TD Five Boro Bike Tour is a great opportunity for charity partners like Partnership with Children to unite around a common goal, and promises to be a day of fun for all the riders and supporters who participate. If you’re interested in cheering on the teams or signing up to participate in next year’s event, check out the information here. To support Team Partnership With Children and its critical mission of ensuring that all of New York’s at-risk youth succeed in the classroom and beyond, visit the team page here.

Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children works to strengthen the emotional, social, and academic skills of at-risk children to help them succeed in school, society, and life. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, ensuring that over 17,000 public school students arrive at school each day ready to learn. Partnership With Children is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.partnershipwithchildren.org/

The post Partnership With Children to Ride For At-Risk Youth in TD Five Boro Bike Tour appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve seen it all over the news lately–parents getting into trouble when their children are truant from school without a valid excuse. While to many it may seem easy to get an excuse letter signed or send in a note the day after the absence, sometimes parents aren’t able to take those steps, or don’t know about their children’s absences from school. In a time of more testing and government regulations in our schools, administrations have elected to pay more attention to when students are staying home, and more importantly, why they are staying home. Read on to learn about truancy laws in the United States and the consequences that may arise for some parents if their children don’t attend school.

What truancy means for each student, school, and state varies. While Strategies for Youth, a non-profit, defines truancy as simply “an unexcused absence from school,” the definition of what an excused absence is, and what being “truant” means depends on the state and sometimes even the school district.

Another organization, Truancy Prevention, breaks down the level of states’ involvement even more:

Any unexcused absence from school is considered a truancy, but states enact their own school attendance laws. State law determines 1) the age at which a child is required to begin attending school, 2) the age at which a child may legally drop out of school, and 3), the number of unexcused absences at which a student is considered legally truant

Each state and school is different, so if you’re curious about specific truancy laws, the best thing to do is look in your individual school handbook to figure out the rules.

Case Study: Eileen DeNino

One extreme case that has gained national attention is that of Eileen DeNino of Reading, Pennsylvania. The 55-year-old mother of eight had to serve a two-day sentence because she owed the court system money due to her sons’ truancy issues. Two of her sons had been absent more than the three days that Pennsylvania allows and were fined repeatedly over several years. She never paid the fines, which landed her in jail; however, the first night of her stay she started complaining that it felt hard to breathe. Jail officials allegedly ignored her pleas for help, thinking she was just trying to get out of serving her time. Her cellmate said that she was moaning in pain the entire time. She died later that night due to complications from a previous medical problem.

Critics have said that her stint in jail is reminiscent of debtor’s prison, which is illegal, while others have said it was wrong because her children were making the decisions on their own. The coroners found that the prison system was not in the wrong.

The law that DeNino broke applies to Pennsylvania, where staying home from school for more than three days is considered truancy. In Berks County alone, “more than 1,600 parents—most of them mothers—have been jailed” for truancy.

A call for reform?

DeNino’s death has led to some calling for change within the education system. While consequences are one thing, parents being fined or put in jail because their children were absent is viewed as something else entirely. Each year, many parents experience problems with a child’s truancy, which commonly leads to fines, loss of custody, and probation for juveniles and/or parents. In some cases these children can be placed in foster care.

For example, in October 2014 the Florida State Attorney’s office issued warrants for the arrest of 44 Jacksonville parents of truant children. One couple, Lucius Corbitt III and Afton Nolan, were both arrested after their daughter missed 40 school days over a three-year period; however, their daughter still made honor roll and was at the top of her class.

“Maybe there are some kids whose parents didn’t want to send them to school,” Corbitt told The Florida Times-Union. “But when my child missed school, my wife and I got make-up work and she passed. … Most days she missed we had doctor’s documentation, but it is so hard to get someone at the school board. It really is crap.”

In other states, such as California, officials have been sent out to do “truancy sweeps” to check up on students who stayed home. In one particular sweep, six parents were arrested, including one parent whose child missed school 21 times. In this situation, most parents were offered parenting classes.

The Arguments For Parent Punishment

There is a reason that we have truancy laws and why students can’t just go to school only when they feel like it. In 1889, the Chicago Board of Education argued, “We should rightfully have the power to arrest all these little beggars, loafers, and vagabonds that infest our city, take them from the streets and place them in schools where they are compelled to receive an education and learn moral principles.”  This was during a time when nearly a quarter of the juveniles jailed in Chicago where there for truancy. By 1918, every state had a law that made school attendance mandatory.

It wasn’t until 2001 and the start of No Child Left Behind that schools had to report this data to the state. Many surmise that the goal was to identify parents who weren’t taking care of their children or were negligent. Since then, more and more government officials have been calling for stricter regulations on truancy, specifically for teenagers.

Recent research has shown that many students are absent at least two days a month, often because the student just didn’t feel like going to school. That is a problem that we need to face, and starting with parents might be the best approach to take.

 Arguments Against Truancy Laws

Most of the cases that we hear about involve teenagers. Some critics of truancy laws feel that teenagers today don’t really feel the effects of the mistakes they make–and this is just another example of that. Parenting website the Stir poses the question:

What’s more, what are we teaching kids about taking responsibility for their own actions, and their own lives, if we’re making parents pay for their misdeeds? Once kids reach their teenage years, it seems to me, it’s time for them to take more responsibility for their own decisions, not less.

Others have claimed that throwing parents in jail isn’t something that will help anyone in the family. According to the Marshall Project, “the criminalization of truancy often pushes students further away from school, and their families deeper into poverty.” Instead of focusing on parents, some hope to focus on the schools and determine why teens are using any excuse not to go.

In some states, the child does face the brunt of the punishment. Some states are even allowed to take away the driving privileges of the teen who is truant.

Conclusion

Students being absent from school is an undeniable problem The rates are typically higher in schools that have more students, which need to have higher scores on state testing in order to get the materials they need. We also know that more than a few absences per year are correlated with lower grades, dropping out of high school, and trouble with the law. It remains unclear whether or not actively threatening, fining, or even jailing these parents is an effective way to treat the “crime.” There may need to be alternate steps taken to make sure that students stay in school as much as possible.

Resources

Jacksonville: Parents Arrested in Truancy Sweep Say There Were Reasons Why Their Kids Missed School

Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Truancy

Stir: Parents Now Thrown in Jail When Kid Misses School

Washington Post: Mother of Seven in Jail Because Her Kids Skipped School Dies in Cell

Truancy Prevention: Truancy Definition, Facts and Laws

Connect With Kids: Arresting Parents For Truancy

Counter Punch: Criminalizing Truancy

Desert Dispatch: Six Arrested, 26 Cited in Truancy Sweep

Johnson Juvenile Lawyers: Juvenile Truancy

Lawrence Journal: Truancy Policies Can Catch Parents by Surprise

Think Progress: The Return Of Debtor’s Prisons: Thousands Of Americans Jailed For Not Paying Their Bills

WFMZ: Coroner Issues Ruling in Death of Woman Jailed in Child Truant Case

WFMZ: Exclusive: Cellmate of Woman Who Died in Jail Speaks Out

U.S. News & World Report: Skipping High School Can Lead to Fines, Jail For Parents

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Parents Pay the Price if Their Children Skip School? appeared first on Law Street.

Schools are constantly feeling the push from colleges, the government, and parents to produce high performers; however, in order for young adults and children to learn, they need to feel safe in their learning environment. One thing that establishes that feeling of ease and safety is for it to be bully-free.

Kids and teens who find themselves becoming victims of either physical or verbal bullying can suffer from bruising and injuries, but can also suffer from depression, anxiety, fear, and low self-esteem. Students who are subjected to the highest levels of bullying have higher amounts of tardiness, absence, and dropouts. But what can and should schools do to prevent this issue? Read on to learn about the bullying that happens in our schools, the steps schools have taken to stop it, and what happens when schools don’t do enough.

How prevalent is bullying?

Bullying breaks down as follows, according to statistics from the National Bullying Prevention Center.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50 percent of children are bullied at some point and ten percent are victims of bullying on a regular basis. Since 1992, there have been more than 250 violent deaths that were a direct result of bullying within schools, and it has also been a factor in several famous school shootings, including Columbine.

Cyber Bullying

Social media, text messaging, and other forms of bullying online have taken an issue that most students could escape at home, and made it nearly impossible to escape. Examples of cyber bullying include mean or nasty text messages and emails, rumors spread by social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles. Cyber bullying is especially problematic for schools because it often happens off campus and can even be done anonymously. Many schools even question what jurisdiction they have over things that happen outside of schools grounds.

The number of students being cyber bullied has only grown with “secret” apps like YikYak. The 2010-2011 School Crime Supplement indicated that nine percent of students in grades six through 12 experienced cyber bullying; however, the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey found that 15 percent of high school students (grades nine through 12) were electronically bullied in that year. It is difficult to combat cyber bullying because just when one app or social media service is fixed, another emerges.

What policies and procedures do schools have in place?

Forty-nine states have anti-bullying legislation–Montana is the one exception–but that seems to not be enough. Schools have no way of enforcing some of the policies, especially when no one is a witness to the bullying. Many have claimed that coming up with actionable steps has proven to be more difficult than it seems because of the wide range of types of bullying. Illinois requires schools to institute social-emotional learning to prevent bullying, whereas other schools have mediation and continual programming. Five states don’t have any repercussions for the anti-bullying laws, while 12 states can actually pursue criminal charges against bullies. These sanctions range anywhere from suspension to community service or even jail time.

Many parents and administrators feel that bullying is a rite of passage of the coming of age process, or a way to toughen up students. Especially with male-on-male bullying, it isn’t always taken seriously; however, those entering the guidance field are starting to receive more training on how to handle bullying situations. The topic has been especially visible in media since shows like “Glee,” “Degrassi,” and even “Hannah Montana” have highlighted the lack of attention placed on bullying in schools. Shows like “Glee,” where the character of Kurt was bullied to the point that he left school, have resonated with students and caused many states to reconsider their actions against bullies.

Still, as the consequences make more noise, administrators, teachers, and students are starting to be held accountable for the behaviors within school walls. The Department of Education recently issued guidance to educators on when acts of student bullying could violate federal education anti-discrimination laws.

What can schools do to prevent bullying?

The truth of bullying is that it isn’t always easily seen, nor is it always black and white. Many people who bully have also been bullied. There is no preventative measure that will eliminate it 100 percent; however, what can be done is to curb the bullying to an immediate, manageable level.

Websites like StopBullying, Jim Wright Online, and the National School Safety Center all offer solutions to the bullying problems. Some of the highlights include programs, group activities, and even ongoing programs for both the bully and the bullied. They also map out the different things the schools can do in a situation where someone is bullied.

For example, an investigation should start immediately after the concern is raised. Anyone can raise the concern, including teachers, students, siblings, parents, bus drivers, and other faculty members. The next step is to have a meeting with the child to find out what is going on–but never with the bully at the same time. Peer mediation has its place, but it should not happen between a bully and a victim.

If the bullying is physical, there should be steps taken to provide for the physical safety of the student, and someone needs to alert necessary faculty and staff members to be on the lookout. The bully also needs to have one-on-one meetings to make sure he or she understands the severity of the problem.

The most important thing is that the school does a thorough investigation into the bullying so that it stops and doesn’t hinder anyone anymore–as bullying often has far-reaching effects that can even hurt the atmosphere of the classroom.

What happens if the bullying doesn’t stop?

Unfortunately, that’s a gray area as well. Many schools have faced lawsuits and fines because they didn’t investigate bullying enough. Schools could face anything from fines in court, being sued by the student or the student’s family, or even mandatory programs within the school. The biggest problems could come for the teachers and administrators who either ignored the bullying, or did as little as possible while it occurred. Some courts are even calling it child endangerment, especially in cases of sexual harassment, abuse, and hate crimes. An even bigger problem comes from cyber bullying and the photos that have been taken of students. Some of these images could be called child pornography.

Case Studies

Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, et al. (4th Cir. July 2011)

In this case, a student sued the school district for limiting her First Amendment free speech rights after suspending her for creating a website that was attacking another student in the school. The website, called “Students Against Shay’s Herpes,” stated that the student had an STD, and created a comments section to gossip about the girl. Doctored photos also appeared on the website. Along with suspension, she was excluded from school festivities like a Charm Review, and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

The appeals court said the web page was created primarily for Kowalski’s classmates, so the school had the right to discipline her for disrupting the learning environment. They concluded that Kowalski had created a “hate website” in violation of the school’s anti-bullying policy.

The Judge in the case, Paul V. Niemeyer wrote:

Kowalski’s role in the `S.A.S.H.’ webpage, which was used to ridicule and demean a fellow student, was particularly mean-spirited and hateful. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators.

Still, it is a tricky area for schools, as many could see this as a freedom of speech violation, and because the website was made outside of school.

L.W. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

In L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a school district can be held accountable for bullying a student because of sexual orientation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD); however, this only applies when the district is aware of the harassment but fails to take reasonable steps to stop it.

The plaintiff’s mother filed a complaint under the LAD in the Division of Civil Rights in which she alleged that the defendant, the Board of Education, failed to take action in response to the harassment that her child suffered due to his perceived sexual orientation. The Division of Civil Rights found that the Board of Education was liable for the peer harassment that L.W. had endured. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Division on Civil Rights.

The case documented several years of abuse that started in fourth grade and continued into his freshman year, where he was bullied to the point of physical attacks. He was removed from the school and enrolled in a nearby district. As punishment for the initial bullying in elementary school, the school had students write apology letters. When he was taunted in seventh grade, the Assistant Principal broke up the fight, but found that L.W.’s behavior “provoked” the incident. More and more incidents occurred but the students only received verbal reprimands.

The school boasted a “zero tolerance bullying policy” the entire time. L.W.’s school addressed the policy in an assembly at the beginning of the school year, but there was no subsequent communication on the policy throughout the year. Eventually, L.W. withdrew from the school and enrolled at a school in a neighboring town. His attendance and transportation expenses were subsidized by the defendant Board of Education.

The Court concluded that the school had not taken reasonable steps to stop the bullying, and that there was more that could have been done on all levels. The Court differentiated L.W.’s situation from “isolated schoolyard insults” or “classroom taunts,” which is how the school had treated them.

Morrow v. Balaski 

At the end of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal seeking to hold a Pennsylvania School District responsible for the repeated bullying of a student by her peers. The case involved Brittany Morrow and the Blackhawk High School in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Her bullying included racial threats, physical assaults, and cyber bullying. In one incident described in the case, Brittany was suspended after defending herself during a lunchroom attack. When her parents asked the school how to keep her safe, they suggested another school. They later filed a lawsuit against the Blackhawk school district and an assistant principal for alleged violations of their 14th Amendment substantive-due-process rights.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court in Morrow v. Balaski, the family said school officials “acted to allow the aggressor to return to school following her temporary suspension and despite court orders mandating no contact. They opened the front door of the school to a person they knew would cause harm to the children.” The appeals court ruled nine to five in favor of the school that there was no “special relationship” between schools and students and ten to four that legal injuries to the victims were not the result of actions taken by administrators under a “state-created danger” theory of liability.

The court was torn about the case, saying “Parents … should be able to send their children off to school with some level of comfort that those children will be safe from bullies. Nonetheless, the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social ill.”

Conclusion

Bullying is a serious problem, and that is especially evident within schools. From simple teasing to physical threats and even assault, bullying weakens the education system. Schools are creating programs and offering tools to try to combat it; however, many people think that teachers and administrators are failing to properly address bullying. It isn’t always easy, when bullying now takes on so many forms, including on the web, schools have a changing relationship with students.

Resources

Primary

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley Country Schools, et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey: L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

Additional

Governing: 49 States Now Have Anti-Bullying Laws. How’s that Working Out?

AACAP: Bullying

Web MD: Social Bullying Common in TV Shows Kids Watch

Education Week: Supreme Court Declines to Take Up School Bullying Case 

Pacer: National Bullying Prevention Center

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying in Schools: Who Gets the Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

With a name like FastTrain College, you probably expect a top-notch education system along the lines of Harvard or Yale; however, what you apparently get is a different type of top entirely. When FastTrain wants you (so basically if you are a man), it will send out its top admissions officer. And by top officer, I of course mean an exotic dancer dressed provocatively in an effort to lure you into the school. Because every life decision should be made by the size of the breasts and attractiveness of the faces you will see when you get there. (Though since I chose my college strictly on the size of its dorm rooms, I suppose I cannot really judge.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

Strippers aside, the school was not as morally motivated as you might expect from an organization that got you to attend by showing you sexy women. The school had a few questionable practices, too. For example, it would apparently give you a high school diploma if you didn’t have one so that you could attend college, which really is very nice even if it is not legal. Let’s all pretend that the real reason isn’t so that the new high school “graduate” can now apply for student loans that will go to the school to pay for their higher “education.” The school also asked students to lie on their government forms. All in all, it stole a whole lot of government money–meaning millions–which led to an FBI raid, criminal charges against the owner, and an ongoing civil suit.

Courtesy of Giphy.

This is a pretty titillating subject don’t you think? (Yes that pun was intended.) More than 100 students from this now-defunct school (only open a few years) are in default on their loans; however, the students going there during the raid will not have to pay. Because of a closed door provision, the government will do the following to a loan from this time: drop it like it’s hot.

I have a feeling this school will not win its lawsuit and will have to repay the money it took. Lucky for FastTrain, it has a real clear way to collect those fees: strip show on campus!

Here is my advice to prospective college students: do not go to a school that is run by strippers unless you are going to school to become a stripper or a stripper-voyeur. I promise you will not regret this advice as ludicrous as it might seem now.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post BS in Dancing: When Strippers Work Admissions, It Might be a Scam appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top three articles last week covered a whole range of hot topics. Don’t worry if you ate too much turkey and couldn’t keep your eyes open to read them though, we’ve got you covered here. The Crime in America Team’s coverage of the Safest and Most Dangerous States in the nation took the top spot; Noel Diem delved into the complicated world of school dress codes and their effects on students for article number two; and Allison Dawson wrote the third most popular post of the week with a look into the University of Virginia’s move to shut down fraternities while it investigates rape allegations published in Rolling Stone. ICYMI, here are the top three stores of the week from Law Street.

#1 Slideshow: America’s Safest & Most Dangerous States 2015

Alaska is the most dangerous state in the nation according to the latest violent crime data from the FBI. With an increase in violent crime rate from 603 per 100,000 people in 2012 to 640 in 2013–the most recent year for which the FBI provides data–Alaska moved into the number one spot, followed by New Mexico (613) and Nevada (603). Read full article here.

#2 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Read full article here.

#3 University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was aRolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

President Obama will be coming to Texas today. Yippee! Thankfully he doesn’t plan to come to Houston so I don’t have to worry about the traffic jam disasters he tends to create. We Houstonians have to deal with horrible traffic day in and day out so having that additional stress just makes us less friendly.

Let’s get to the more important stuff: President Obama, Governor Rick Perry, and immigration. So much has come out about these three in the last couple of days that it is making me mad.

But first I want to address the petty topic that Governor Perry has declined shaking President Obama’s hand when he hits the mean Texas tarmac. When I first read this headline I thought, “Oh great, something else for Democrats to grab on to and slander Texas and Republicans with,” but once I read the blurb that went along with that headline it actually makes sense. I love Governor Perry and although I don’t agree with him on everything, I do agree with him on not wanting to simply shake Obama’s hand and take a few pictures. Despite our differences you should always show respect to our Commander in Chief (until Texas secedes from the Union — though we all know that isn’t legal or likely). But if our good ol’ President is going to come to Texas he should probably squeeze in a little time to talk to the Governor and see what’s going on at the border instead of hitting up Democratic party circuit. Squeeze in reality for a few hours sir, you might look like you care about what’s happening down here.

Moving on to something a bit closer to home and a little more important: a Houston Independent School District (HISD) middle school is being considered as housing for immigrant children. I am the product of a HISD education — a craptastic one at that — and my intelligence and creativity come from hard work and influences outside of the HISD realm, but I still feel it is necessary to share that tiny bit of information. HISD is the largest school district in Texas, seventh largest in the United States, and it has 282 schools. Yes nearly three hundred schools, but how many of those are actually in use?

HISD was so kind as to give Homeland Security officials a nice little tour of an abandoned middle school in the Houston area. Why would Homeland Security want to come visit an abandoned school, you ask? Well it’s because this building is being considered for housing for undocumented children who have crossed the Texas-Mexico border in recent months. Most of these kids crossed the border illegally and alone, which has now turned into another issue that the U.S. is being forced to handle. Typically Border Patrol is required to transfer all unaccompanied children over to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours, but because so many children — 52,000 since October 2013 — have crossed the border it is taking more time and resources to house all of these illegal children. Surprisingly by law, all illegal alien children who are not from Mexico cannot be immediately deported without an additional investigation to ensure that these children are not victims of sex trafficking.

It was news to me to find out that Terrell Middle School, the site of the tour, had been closed since 2001 and is now simply a storage unit for the district. So instead of taking the hard-earned tax dollars of Houston locals and putting them into keeping Terrell as a school, people like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and the higher ups within HISD feel it is okay to turn it into a housing facility for children. I have never been a fan of Congresswoman Lee and certainly have very little respect for anyone at HISD, but this is getting a little bit ridiculous. Allowing an abandoned school to go unused is infuriating, but then to turn it into federal housing is even worse. Yes, these children need a place to stay but it is not the responsibility of a school district to house children and the federal government should probably get its act together and do what needs to be done. Terrell could be reopened had HISD used a little bit of a $1.9 BILLION bond to update it instead of just letting it sit there while they tear down and rebuild schools that really don’t need to be renovated or rebuilt altogether.

What else could the abandoned middle school be used for instead of just housing for immigrant children and storage for HISD? Well, the school could be torn down and the property sold to a private investor to create more housing or a shopping center for the area. Or even use the land as a sports arena. At the end of my neighborhood is a parcel of HISD property that is all baseball fields rented out to a local little league association for $1 a year. HISD doesn’t even care to profit from what it already owns. The building could be turned into a public library, police station, or even a community center. Allowing the 14.5 acres to be used in a way that is beneficial to the city of Houston is much more ideal than allowing it to be turned into storage or federal housing for undocumented children.

Everyone knows that getting anything done by the government is like watching paint dry. Slow and painful. And can I ask why President Obama declared back in June that we have an “urgent humanitarian situation” at our border? This is not something new; this has been going on for decades. Sometimes I wonder where the President has been all of these years. I’ve seen the statistics: there have been a larger number of border crossings in the last year but there is a reason for that. I partially blame how bad it is getting south of the border, but I also blame how relaxed we have become about our borders without even realizing it.

I may come across a bit heartless, but I don’t believe in a handout and I don’t believe that just because you cross the border into the United States that you are automatically allowed to live here, even if you are a child. There are laws and regulations that need to be upheld. The first step to becoming an American is to respect the United States.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Debi Fitzsimmons via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama, Perry, and the Crisis at the Texas Border appeared first on Law Street.

Both business and law school students across the country will almost undoubtedly learn about mergers and acquisitions inside the classroom. However, some students at the University of Maine are about to get some real world experience with these concepts. Plans to merge the university’s law and business degree programs were leaked last week in a report created by a group of concerned professors.

The details are still tentative. It’s unclear whether the university will simply consolidate the schools under one roof, or go so far as to have teachers and students from both schools combine to form an independent school with one dean. Despite these muddled, yet crucial specifics, Maine’s motivation to bring together these two schools is quite clear. With law school applicants dwindling amid high student debt and the depressingly crowded job market, schools are doing whatever they can to keep their law programs alive; even if that means being unconventional in an industry that prides itself on its traditional nature.

Admittedly, there are areas of overlap between law and business that could definitely be acceptable and beneficial to both. With the globalization trend that has continued to grow in the twenty-first century, it is no surprise that employers strongly desire the most well-rounded student. After all, the more skills and knowledge a student possesses, the more inherently valuable they are. Chief Executive Officer at the Bernstein Shur law firm in Portland, Pat Scully, showed his support for this initiative saying, “It will be easier for students to draw on the best of both offerings.” Working with business-minded faculty would allow future lawyers to gain insight and better relate to clients in ways that law professors simply aren’t accustomed to teaching.

But that is not the part with which the teachers find problems. They are concerned that during this planning process the teachers and students that will actually have to put the plans in motion are being ignored. This worry stems from the fact that the planning is being conducted by a third party, the Parthenon Group. Moving forward, it will definitely prove crucial how involved the educators are in this merger because they are the ones that will either accept it with open arms, or coldly reject and challenge this new system. In essence, however they are treated and react could either create a successful precedent and help remedy the current law school crisis, or just add to the list of ill-fated solutions already offered.

For example, the Charleston School of Law found itself in a similar crisis when it was discovered that their founders took out profits totaling $25 million in 2013. Recently, a presumed angel in the form of a company called the InfiLaw System, stepped in and offered to purchase the school. This would add to the other three for-profit law schools they have acquired. While many argue that InfiLaw is the only option to keep Charleston’s doors open, it seems in many ways the lesser of two evils. InfiLaw, like Charleston, is a for-profit company that builds other for-profit law schools; a characteristic that makes many students and community members wary of supporting the sale. They are are understandably skeptical of the school being handed off to another money-hungry group that will just put them back into the same situation. Other concerns stem from allegations that claim InfiLaw is a “diploma mill” with admission standards lower than normal because they are a profit driven organization.

These two solutions for keeping law school programs alive during this ongoing crisis provide insight on what seems to be a step in the right direction. The University of Maine has found a feasible resolution that actually predicts a positive outcome for students and may even help to set them ahead of the undeniable competition, especially from Ivy Leagues. On the other hand, schools like Charleston seem to be haphazardly throwing their programs into the hands of whomever will leave the school’s remaining founders with the optimal profit. Unfortunately, it seems in both cases the teachers and students are not being awarded the consideration they deserve as the heart of the system itself. This oversight that could prove fatal in both situations.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jesse Michael Nix via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: University of Maine to Merge Law and Business appeared first on Law Street.

Millennials love the Internet, and most can tell you that from a young age, bullying was as present there as it was on the playground. As states have struggled to keep changing technology on the books to prevent bullying, they have faced challenges when it comes to preventing, or correcting, behavior that happens online and outside of school.

In Illinois, the Senate just passed a law that would ban students from using phones and computers as mechanisms for cyberbullying- whether in school or at home. The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk, and if signed, would be one of few around the country to include such far-reaching rules for cyberbullying; most only tackle in-school behavior. But critics call into question whether the bill can be effective, and even if it is, whether or not it goes too far- making school administrators step in where law enforcement should instead. The law in Illinois previously covered cyberbullying only if it took place on school computers- this new bill goes far beyond that.

This Illinois bill, while in many ways necessary, calls into question a number of things, the first of which being the jurisdiction of a school’s administration. If cyberbullying is taking place outside of school altogether, it is hard to find legal precedent for why the matter should be brought inside the school. Some critics of this bill, and of others like it, say cyberbullying is best dealt with by local police authorities instead of those at the school. Furthermore, not all cyberbullying is a result of students being victimized by others at the same school- it is entirely possible that the bullying can happen from students in other school districts, other states, or even other countries.

Another potential problem with this bill would be the mechanisms by which it is enforced. The simplest way to keep track of this cyberbullying would be to have victims show school administrators websites or other social media platforms that have the bullying. But oftentimes, victims are too scared or embarrassed to do that. And even for those who do come forward, social media websites like Facebook and Twitter, and other new platforms like YikYak (which has already been called a haven for bad behavior), can allow bullies to act anonymously. Of course, some simple sleuth work or help from law enforcement would be able to dig up a lot of information on the root of the cyberbullying, but with many schools being underfunded and understaffed, there are questions about how effective administrators could be about looking into all of these instances.

But even if it were possible for school officials to effectively monitor this kind of behavior- what are the legal complications of instituting this kind of policy?

1. Historical Precedent

At public schools, students are granted a degree of free speech, and there have been a plethora of court cases trying to define such boundaries. One of the earliest is the famed Tinker v. Des Moines, which held students have the right to free speech so long as they don’t disrupt what’s supposed to happen at school (learning in a calm environment). One of the reasons cyberbullying is difficult to mesh in with a case law on free speech, is because it usually does not take place on campus, so that “disruption” is more difficult to pinpoint.

2. Different ways cyberbullying is defined

Currently, 13 states have off-campus behaviors included in their cyberbullying policies, all to varying degrees. Some states, like Arkansas, require off-campus attacks to be directed at students or staff and be “intended for the purpose of disrupting school, and has a high likelihood of succeeding in that purpose.” Other states, like Connecticut, define cyberbullying a bit more broadly, considering cyberbullying anything that “creates a hostile environment at school for the victim.” Obviously, the more broadly defined, the more instances of bullying it will include, and the more work that will need to be done by school officials as a result.

In Illinois, bullying is defined as “any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act of conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically” that results in a student fearing harm of self or property, that substantially interferes with academic performance, or causes harm to a student’s physical or mental health. That definition has always been in place in Illinois, just now extends further to cover off-campus online bullying, too.

It is not yet clear where the line will be drawn in terms of cyberbullying rules each school can enact. It seems that as long as schools can prove the bullying (on campus, or off) led to significant disruption within the school, they are within their rights to enact these policies.

[Education Week] [State Facts] [Tinker v. Des Moines] [boston.com]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr- woodleywonderworks]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illinois Tries to Expand Cyberbullying Laws Outside of Schools appeared first on Law Street.

It goes without saying that bullying is a condemnable practice and that it remains a crucial problem to solve in this country. But can we really punish children for bullying with the law?

A bill, which ultimately failed during a final vote held on May 20, would have made bullying a criminal offense in Carson, California. Jim Dear, the mayor of Carson, wanted to designate his city as a bully-free zone. Dear and the city council supported a bill that would have made bullying a misdemeanor for culprits that are 25 and under. The ordinance imposed a fine on those convicted of the misdemeanor. Mayor Dear felt that this measure would help to prevent bullying.

Two reasons why the bill failed:

1. The language used was extremely vague, making the bill hard to interpret. The bill did not define bullying, and it’s lack of specifications as to what actions constitute bullying was worrisome to many. The ambiguous language could have allowed law enforcement officers to determine that bullying had occurred at their own discretion.

2. Many members of the Carson community expressed concerns over the measure’s application to young children, noting that elementary school children are still beginning to develop and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

But while the measure failed, the fact that it was close to passing puts great importance on the matter of whether ordinances against bullying should be enacted into law. Moreover, although the Carson bill did not pass, a similar measure in Florida will soon be put to a vote.

Controversy: should bullying be considered a criminal offense?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation, thinks not. Porter, a seasoned educator and counselor, debated the issue with Mayor Dear on a public radio station in California. In her book, Ms. Porter expressed that through her experience in schools, she found that increasingly harsh anti-bullying policies in schools did not decrease the amount of bullying in schools but made the situation worse. She claimed that school policies labeled children as bullies or victims, and that these children continued to adhere to those roles in the future.

Many anti-bullying policies treat the situations as black and white, attempting to solve the problem by shielding victims rather than working with both children to resolve their conflict in a less harmful way. By focusing on the punishment rather than the problem, the issue of bullying in American schools has yes to be resolved. Given this view on bullying, Ms. Porter argued against Carson’s proposed law, viewing the measure as another method of focusing on the punishment rather than taking steps to prevent children from bullying in the first place.

For more insight into Susan Porter’s argument against anti-bullying laws, check out this interview with her from Reason TV:

Despite Susan Porter’s reasoned argument, many municipalities and cities are still considering anti-bullying laws on the books. In fact, several cities already have, including Milton, Wisconsin. But while Carson’s potential anti-bullying law was met with a great deal of criticism and media attention, Milton’s law, which has been in place for four years, has not had any issues in its enforcement.

What, then, can cities like Carson learn from Milton’s law in shaping anti-bullying policy?

For one thing, Milton’s policy allows for schools to internally handle the first instances of bullying rather than immediately resorting to law enforcement. This can allow schools a chance to work with students to teach them why bullying is wrong rather than simply stating that it is wrong through formal punishment. While schools still need to improve the ways that they handle bullying, allowing the schools to handle offenses first gives them the opportunity to guide children in the error of their ways before they are convicted of bullying. This practice, if coupled with successful school counseling, could lessen the number of bullies that would be formally charged by the law.

Additionally, the policy gives a clearer definition on the kind of practices that constitute severe bullying. Jim Martin, the Milton school policer officer, noted that he “only engages the most severe cases, and draws a sharp distinction between the kind of behavior that requires intervention and the usual push and pull of the schoolyard.” Ensuring that only serious cases of bullying could be brought to court gives a clearer sense of what actions would violate the law and does not put children who name call and those who beat up others into the same category. 

With a clearer definition of what actions make bullying a crime and allowing schools to work with children to teach them about the harm bullying causes rather than immediately punishing them, the Milton law remains a good example of an anti-bullying policy. If cities feel that enacting an ordinance against bullying will help curb the problem in their schools and communities, careful wording must be put into the law to allow for the proper handling of these situations.

[NPR] [SCPR] [Susan Porter] [Desert News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post New Anti-Bullying Bill: 2 Reasons Why it Failed appeared first on Law Street.

For years now schools have had to continually ask themselves, “How do we deal with bullies?” It seems like no matter what, when you put a bunch of young people together in a building to spend day after day with just a few teachers to supervise, you end up with some kids who pick on others. So schools have to figure out how to confront this issue, and unfortunately ome of them do a very very bad job at it.

Candler Elementary in Buncombe County, NC made a pitiful attempt to stop the bullying of a young boy who carried a “My Little Pony” backpack. Instead of punishing the bullies who targeted the boy or even telling them to stop, they told the boy to stop bringing the backpack to school.

Caprock Academy in Grand Junction, Colo. barred a 9-year-old girl from attending school for not following the school’s dress code. The dress code was created to ensure that students look similar and don’t create any distractions. So how had the girl violated the code? She shaved her head in solidarity with her friend who has cancer.

These instances send messages to students that I find incredibly problematic.

3. The message it sends to bullies. 

Removing kids from school because they’re in any way nonconformist tells kids that it’s not OK to be yourself — and that’s a dangerous message to send to bullies because it validates their behavior. It tells the bullies that there is something wrong with these students and they deserve to be treated differently as a result.

This is almost exactly what happened in Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota a few years ago. In just two years, 2009-2011, nine kids in the district committed suicide. Many were either gay, or thought to be gay by their classmates. Anoka-Hennepin actually banned all discussion of homosexuality from its schools during this period. Teachers had to avoid talking to their students about homosexuality or identity for fear of losing their jobs. Students weren’t allowed to form a Gay Straight Alliance. They couldn’t talk to staff about fears, concerns, or crises they were having. As Jefferson Fietek, a teacher at Anoka Middle School, pointed out, “LGBTQ students don’t feel safe at school. They’re made to feel ashamed of who they are. They’re bullied. And there’s no one to stand up for them, because teachers are afraid of being fired.”

The case of the young man with the My Little Pony backpack isn’t that far from what Anoka-Hennepin did. By removing all mention of homosexuality from that school, administrators were saying that it was indeed wrong, and that young people struggling with their sexuality didn’t deserve resources, understanding, or protection. They said that the bullies are right because those kids are, in fact, harmfully different. By removing that kid’s backpack from school, administrators at Candler Elementary are doing the same thing. They are saying that he is wrong and deserves to be taunted.

Now, it’s important to note that both schools have since changed their policies. Anoka-Hennepin School District, after the tragic rash of suicides, started providing resources to LGBTQ students. And Candler Elementary has since allowed the backpack back in school. But the fact that this was the automatic reaction on the part of the school district is unquestionably concerning.

2. The message it sends to the victims. 

Such actions on the part of the school sends the opposite message to the victims. It tells them that their abuse is justified. It propagates a bullying culture. It essentially tells students that they need to conform to their bully’s expectations in order to avoid being bullied. But adolescence is when people explore their likes and dislikes, their personalities, and their passions. And to teach children to hide those things because it could expose them to the bullies is ridiculous. Instead, bullies should be taught not to bully. They should be taught that treating another human being that way is abhorrent and utterly unacceptable.

Victim blaming is a bad way to deal with bullying, but it often seems like an immediate reaction on the part of the school. For example, look at this story of a girl in Missouri who was bullied because of her body. According to a report on the issue, “Tammie Jackson contacted her daughter’s middle school to complain about her daughter Gabrielle Jackson being bullied, as reported by Fox News. Allegedly, a school official at Central Middle School in Moline Acres, Mo., said Gabrielle would be bullied unless she transferred schools and had breast reduction surgery.”

That’s utterly ridiculous. Telling a young girl, who is probably already insecure about her body, that she needs to get breast reduction surgery in order to avoid being bullied is disgusting. Instead, we need to teach the bullies that you shouldn’t be a gigantic, disgusting, jerk.

1. The message it sends to the rest of the students. 

It teaches other students to be bystanders. Years after taking an Intro to Psych course, the Kitty Genovese story has always stuck with me. For those of you who don’t know this story, it’s essentially one of the most well known examples of the bystander effect. In 1968, Kitty Genovese was stabbed outside her home in Queens, New York. She screamed for help the entire time, but none of her neighbors, despite being able to hear her, did anything. They all thought that it wasn’t their responsibility and that someone else would obviously step in to help. But no one did, and Genovese died that night.

When schools blame victims for being bullied, they are teaching their students to just stand there for fear of being bullied themselves. They are teaching students that nonconformity is a bad thing, and that there’s no need to defend those being bullied. And in some ways, that’s the most dangerous lesson of all, because no matter where you go in life there will be bullies. Whether it’s a pushy coworker, or an obnoxious neighbor, or an angry driver on the road, there will be bullies in life. And if we teach our young people to stand up for others, that’s the first step to counteracting those bullies. Teaching students to just stand by and watch will just make the problem worse.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [TwentyFour Students via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schools Need to Change How They Deal with Bullying. Now. appeared first on Law Street.

Students have to go to school- it’s the law. But what happens when a student, legally bound to go to school, is suspended for a long period of time, or even expelled? In some places, there is no contingency plan to make sure the student is learning while out of school. Should students who have been suspended or expelled be expected to keep up with schoolwork the same way their peers- who remain in classes- are?

Massachusetts has recently passed a new law, which would require school districts in the state to provide some kind of provide some kind of education to students facing long-term education or expulsion. Specifically, it says: “any school district that suspends or expels a student under this section shall continue to provide educational services to the student during the period of suspension or expulsion.”

The bill does not highlight specific ways in which school districts could supplement these students’ education, but with modern technology, online options seem feasible. Some people have pointed out that the cost of educating students outside of the classroom is expensive, but if the alternative is not having students taught at all, some expenses don’t seem like that much of a problem. There are also alternative schools, which are funded publicly for students with behavioral problems. But again, each state handles admissions to these schools differently. There is also always the concern of over-filling alternative schools, and having the education there suffer as a result.

Long-term suspensions and expulsions are not the norm for most students, but have become an increasingly common way to deal with behavioral infractions of students. Many schools have instituted “zero tolerance” policies in respect to actions like fighting and bringing weapons, alcohol, or drugs to school. If a student is found to have partaken in one of the “zero-tolerance” behaviors, he or she faces immediate and severe punishment, ranging from suspension to expulsion.

While the safety of students is of course a priority, educators and legislators need to consider the ramifications of these “zero-tolerance” policies, and many others, which lead to so many suspensions and expulsions in the first place. While the Massachusetts law is a great attempt to keep students on track when they otherwise would not be, perhaps it is more important to address these problems before students have to leave school.

The ACLU outlines something known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.” People claim that when students aren’t in school, they are more likely to engage in other destructive behaviors, making it more likely for those individuals to end up in prison. The group outlines a number of policies, including zero-tolerance policies that they say only adds to the number of students suspended or expelled each year.

By implementing this law, Massachusetts has stuck a wrench in the school-to-prison pipeline, which currently exists. Rather than letting a student’s education fall by the wayside during the suspension, students will have the opportunity to continue to keep up with classes even while not in the school building itself. Obviously, the long-term benefits of the policy are not known, but it shows that state legislatures across the country could be addressing similar topics.

Regardless of whether this method has been proven to work, the idea and rationale behind it is solid. When students are in school, they’re taught. When students aren’t in school, they don’t get taught. Having a student not in school because of behavioral problems not getting taught seems like a recipe for disaster. If more states took the path Massachusetts is taking now, down the road we could see some significant changes in the population of incarceration among youth who have faced these problems in school at a young age.

[ACLU] [Sentinel and Enterprise] [Law] [Dignity Schools] [Huff Po]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Larry Darling via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Expands Instruction to Expelled Students appeared first on Law Street.

A new idea is being proposed that could dramatically change education requirements in United States public schools. In New Mexico, State Senator Jacob Canderlaria, a democrat, has proposed a bill that would allow computer programming to count towards student’s foreign language requirements. Candelaria claims this measure would help promote the teaching of computer coding since its inclusion in a school’s curriculum would be funded by the state. Schools would still be able to choose which languages they offer to their students, as they currently do, but also would provide any computer programming language to students as an alternative to a traditional foreign language. New Mexico is not alone in offering this intriguing suggestion; Kentucky has had a similar bill mentioned in its own state legislature. State Senator David Givens, a republican, sponsored the Kentucky bill, and stated that the measure would make it easier for students to begin studying computer science.

It is true that state sponsorship of computer programming classes could have many benefits. The salaries for computer programming jobs are much higher than the national average, and students pursuing computer science could expect to receive a good income. In addition, there is evidently a greater need for understanding computer code in this digital age, and incentivizing early learning of computer programming could boost the number of college students who choose to major in the field. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that in 2010, only 2.4 percent of graduates received degrees related to computer science. With a low number of college graduates receiving education in this lucrative field of study, it is evident that the nation could benefit from some kind of incentive for schools to teach computer programming.

But is the answer to increasing the computer programming skills of students to count them as foreign language classes? Deeming computer programming as a foreign language would have negative implications: the measure would hurt the already struggling foreign language program in the United States when the need for fluency in languages other than English has only increased.

There are a multitude of reasons why learning foreign languages is extremely important.  As globalization increasingly links countries together in business, foreign relations, trade and other areas, knowledge of other languages can be the deciding factor when choosing candidates for higher level jobs. In addition, the United States is already way behind other countries in terms of the percentage of their population who understand multiple languages. According to data from 2010, while 53 percent of Europeans know at least one other language besides their native tongue, just 18 percent of Americans speak an additional language. Most European schools begin instructing their pupils in different languages in elementary school, while only a third of US elementary schools include this vital component of education. This is especially troubling as studies have shown that people are better able to master languages when they start at young ages.

And yet, foreign language education was among the budget cuts made in 2012. The Department of Education had bequeathed 27 million dollars in foreign language education funding before the program was cut in the budget deal. Adding computer programming to the list of ‘languages’ a school offers would only further detract from the weakened language programs. If the United States is so worried about global competitiveness, why are foreign language programs not given their needed attention and funding?

The United States is still very much in the mindset of an English centered world in which English is the lingua franca. Many Americans know that English, for the time being, remains an extremely important language that citizens of many other countries are learning. However, the comfort of only needing to speak English could be challenged as the years go by. As China continues to increase its economic power, many other countries are starting to focus on Mandarin as well as English. Additionally, other areas of the world that speak languages like Arabic, Russian, Hindi and others are becoming increasing important for business and diplomacy. And even closer to home, the English dominance of America will soon be challenged: it is projected that by 2050, Spanish will replace English as the most widely spoken language in the country. It is crucial that Americans begin to learn other languages to prepare for the future, and the first step should be to focus on strengthening foreign language programs in schools.

This is not to say that schools should not offer computer programming at all. There are obviously many benefits to having tech savvy students, and computer programming should be included in the push to promote STEM education. But foreign languages should not be deemphasized to promote computer coding. It is true that not all students would take the option of switch to a computer programming language, but offering a choice between the two only weakens foreign language education and would deplete the attention and resources devoted to traditional languages learning. The US is already very behind in the amount of students who learn multiple languages, and computer programming as an alternative could decrease the percentages of students enrolled in languages even further.

Schools should not be opposed to finding more ways for computer programming to enter their curriculums but not at the expense of foreign language.

[Washington Post] [ABQ Journal] [NCES] [Forbes] [Language Magazine] [Huffington Post] [US News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Erre via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Computer Programming as a Foreign Language? appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 saw yet another shooting unfold on a college campus. Andrew Boldt, a senior at Purdue University, was shot and killed inside the university’s electrical engineering building. The police responded quickly to the scene and arrested the suspect, Cody Collins, shortly after the shots were fired.  Purdue University responded to the incident by sending text message alerts to students telling them to take shelter in their present locations.  Later, the university cancelled classes for the rest of Tuesday as well as Wednesday and held a candlelight vigil to pay respects to Boldt.

Unfortunately, Tuesday’s shooting is only one of a number of recent events involving gun violence on college campuses and schools.  On the evening of Monday January 20th, a student was shot and injured near the athletic center of Widener University in Eastern Pennsylvania.  On Janurary 9th, a seventeen year old student was shot outside the main office of Liberty Tech High School in Jackson, Tennessee.  On January 14th, a twelve year old boy brought a loaded gun into the gym of Berrendo Middle School in New Mexico, shooting and wounding two students. On January 19th, another shooting occurred inside Delaware Valley Charter High School, where two students were shot and wounded.  And the list continues.

With so many shootings at schools and universities in January alone, the issue of gun control in school again resurfaces.  These recent events and past tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary and Virginia Tech begs the question: has there been any progress in preventing gun violence in schools?

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey‘s most recent findings in fact show that only 5.4 percent of high school students brought guns onto school property.  This percentage is half of that in 1993.  However, the recent violence in the news has not gone unnoticed: around 540 bills on school security were introduced in state legislatures in 2013, and 106 were passed into law.  The measures include gun-safety education, emergency drills, and security officers on school grounds.

Some local school boards have also gone as far as providing guns to teachers and other staff in the school to try to provide safety for students. Bills that allow school officials to possess guns passed into law in eight states. This policy corresponds with the National Rifle Association’s claim after Newtown that the way to prevent gun violence is with the use of guns, not without them.  Perhaps, as the NRA argues, armed officers or teachers in schools can deter shooters from committing further violence. After Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, stated, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Proponents of this view point to the case of the shooting in Prince Middle School in Georgia: after a student shot another student, an armed officer was able to disarm him and end his streak of violence.

However, there are several problems with this solution. First, even if arming teachers and officers in schools can potentially limit violence, how can it prevent the initial action before it occurs?  Second, who is to say the “good guy with a gun” won’t make a mistake and target an innocent person?  And additionally, seeing teachers and officers respond to emergencies with guns can encourage children to desire to emulate their superiors by acquiring a weapon of their own. Responding to violence with violence is not the answer.  Instead, the focus must be on preventative measures such as education on weapons and counseling.  Schools need to get to the root of the problem and determine why children and young adults resort to using weapons to solve their issues.  The focus of schools must turn to learning about behavioral issues in adolescents and how schools can implement strategies to teach children to turn away from violence.

In the mean time, efforts are still needed to ensure the wrong people can’t acquire a gun.  The issue of gun control is still very much on the President‘s mind.  Earlier in January, President Obama announced two executive actions that will increase the ease for states to provide records of citizens with mental illness to the background check system of the federal government.  After failing to get enough votes in Congress for legislation to make it harder to purchase guns last year, the President announced he would use the power of executive orders to do what he could on his own to create progress on gun control.  While these actions are encouraging, this month shows that children and young adults are still able to get their hands on guns and endanger the lives of their classmates.  Therefore, much that can be done to prevent gun violence in schools and universities depends upon the institutions themselves.

[CNN] [NY Daily News] [NBC] [WBBJTV] [Philly.com] [NY Times] [The Daily Beast] [NPR]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [CT Senate Democrats via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Gun Violence in Schools and Universities Continues appeared first on Law Street.

The morning of January 23, 2014, I had the privilege to attend an event at the Center for American Progress. It was called, “The Changing Role of Teachers Unions: Ensuring High Quality Public Education for America’s Students.”

There were introductory remarks from CAP’s President, Neera Tanden, a keynote Presentation from Dennis Van Roekel, the President of the National Education Association, and then a panel discussion involving Mr. Van Roekel; Richard Lee Colvin, Senior Associate at Cross & Joftus; Elena Silva, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Paul Toner, President of the Massachusetts Teachers Association; and Tammy Wawro, President of the Iowa State Education Association. The discussion was moderated by Carmel Martin from the CAP.

The overall theme of the discussion was how the NEA is trying to transform its function from an organization that focuses on mostly collective bargaining and lobbying functions, to one that also plays a large part in policy, advocacy, and professional development. They want to provide teachers with the ability to collaborate and control the direction of their profession by advocating a new student-centered approach.

During his keynote, Dennis Van Roekel used a metaphor for the NEA’s goals that continued throughout the symposium. He described how the American education system is very good at creating “campfires,” but as any good Boy or Girl Scout can tell you, a perfect campfire just stays burning in the place where you put it; it doesn’t spread. He described how the new goal of the NEA and the American Education system should be to create brushfires–fires that spread through connections, improved training, and leadership development.

The panel dealt with a number of questions about how these new priorities would be implemented. Both of the on-the-ground state representatives, Toner and Wawro,  highlighted how teachers are on board with many policy changes, including Common Core, different types of teacher evaluations, and more leadership training, but are overwhelmed by how quickly they’re happening. They both emphasized that it’s going to take time to make it work, but everyone is optimistic. There was also a large emphasis on the partnerships that can be formed between teachers, the NEA, and other organizations, such as an organization called Teach Plus, a national non-profit that helps urban teachers.

There was some concern about how this will all work. Silva pointed out that much of what is happening right now is experimentation. But it’s very high risk experimentation, as it happens in the real world. If things go wrong in a school where something new is being tried out, it could harm the students. Schools, and the NEA, could get in a lot of trouble if any changes do fail. But it seems that the potential for failure seems better than the subsistence existence that many schools are in right now. After all, as Van Roekel pointed out, high school graduation rate is only about 75%, and it’s even lower in inner-city schools. Experimentation needs to happen, but Silva is right, it is dangerous, and schools need to be ready to make quick changes if necessary.

I found the part of the talk that dealt with the changing efforts of NEA to be interesting and informative, but I was actually even more interested in a section of the discussion that diverged a bit. One of the introductory points that Van Roekel used was the fact that we need to make sure that our teachers are qualified and ready to teach from day one. He gave the example of going to the emergency room–upon arrival, no one would think to ask if their doctor was licensed. Van Roekel wants it to be the same in the classroom–every teacher is licensed and ready to teach starting on the first day they walk into a school. There was some debate on this subject, as Silva pointed out that doctors aren’t necessarily ready to work on patients beginning the first day, but that its rather a learning process over a number of years.

This led to a fascinating conversation about recruitment. In order for our teachers to be ready to teach from the beginning and qualified, they need to be the right people for the jobs. But there are significantly less people going into the teaching profession. Van Roekel partly attributed this to the fact that in past decades, excellent women and minority students went into teaching because it was one of the only things they could do. But as opportunities widened, less people are choosing to teach.

Besides increased equality, the panel’s best guess for this phenomenon is that less people are going into the teaching profession because they are not encouraged to do so. Toner said that when he first went into teaching, he saw some of his old teachers, who asked him what he was doing. He told them he was a teacher, and they expressed disappointment, telling him he was too smart for that. I’ve had friends who’ve decided to take on teaching majors and have received similar reactions from their friends and family. The truth of the matter is that teaching is no longer respected the way it was in the past, and many intelligent young people are steered away because they are convinced that they would make more money in another field. The idiom, “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach,” is still alive and well. This of course, isn’t to say that the individuals who are entering the education field do not deserve our applause, support, and thanks. The problem is that there’s just less of them, especially as baby boomers start to retire.

Teaching is no longer being viewed as worth it, which is really sad. I attended public school almost my entire life, and many of the teachers I had were the most wonderful, intelligent, thoughtful, and engaging individuals with whom I have ever had the privilege to spend time. They absolutely shaped my life, and I feel so incredibly fortunate to have had access to a public school like that. The teaching profession does need to change, if only to ensure that such great people do continue to enter the field, and I applaud the NEA, CAP, and other organizations’ attempts to do so. Let’s hope they do turn those campfires into brushfires.

Thanks to the Center for American Progress for their great work on this event.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Center for Teaching Vanderbilt University via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A New Role for the NEA: Turning Campfires into Brushfires appeared first on Law Street.

In a small outer suburb of Boston, MA, a town named Danvers is reeling after the discovery of a young math teacher’s murder by one of her students, a fourteen-year-old named Philip Chism.

Twenty-four year old Colleen Ritzer taught math at Danvers High School, about 20 miles north of Boston. She was beloved by her students. In an interview with CBS News, one of her freshmen students Riley Doyle described Ritzer as “always really upbeat and positive and excited about math. She made every lesson like you wanted to learn it. For the first time, math became one of my favorite classes.” Ritzer was originally from Massachusetts, she had attended Andover High School and Assumption College. She was also well known at Danvers High School for being accessible to her students and a pioneer in using technology to connect with her students—for example, she updated her Twitter with their homework each evening.

The mystery began on Tuesday night, when Ritzer did not return home from work. A search for her yielded blood in the 2^nd floor bathroom of Danvers High School, and officials eventually discovered her body in the woods behind the school.  According to police, she was stabbed by a box cutter and may have been beaten.

A student from Danvers High School named Philip Chism was arrested on Wednesday and during an arraignment on Wednesday afternoon, charged with first degree murder and is being held without bail. He is being charged as an adult, pending a mental health evaluation. Philip Chism is 14 years old and originally from Tennessee. Chism was also reported missing the same night as Ritzer, but was later found walking along the side of the road.

Surveillance cameras at the high school show that Chism assaulted Ritzer, and then put her in a recycling bin that he dragged out into the woods and dispersed of the body. Before being found by the police, he was last seen running away from the soccer field and telling classmates that he needed to go take care of something. According to the police, after disposing of the body, he went to the movies and saw Blue Jasmine.

Chism has been described by classmates as nice, but quiet and reserved. He was a talented soccer player—the 6’2” freshman was a top scorer on the JV team. In an interview with Huffington Post, one of his teammates said about Chism, “he wasn’t violent at all. He was really the opposite of aggressive.”   When he was reported missing on Tuesday, his classmates actually spread messages through Twitter in an attempt to find him.

A probable cause hearing for Chism’s case has been set for November 22^nd. As of yet, police have not disclosed a motive. Ritzer is the second teacher to die a violent death at the hands of a student this week—Mike Landsberry, a math teacher at Sparks Middle School in Nevada was shot by a student earlier this week.

Teaching is a noble, tough, and thoroughly underappreciated profession. In the past few years, we’ve heard story after story about violent incidents occurring at schools of every grade level—from Newtown to Columbine to Virginia Tech. But what is almost most disturbing about Chism’s case is that it seems so normal and yet so abnormal at the same time. He was not a young man that came in with a weapon hoping to hurt a large number of people. His case is in many ways a straightforward murder. Often in mass murders that occur in schools, such as Adam Lanza in Newtown, the explanation deals with severe mental illness. But Chism might be different. He took pains to hide the body, and talked to classmates as he left. He, presumably, was wandering down the road to in an attempt to avoid the police. He seems in some ways more human than the school shooters to which we’ve become so utterly desensitized. His mental health will be determined in weeks to come, and hopefully Ritzer’s family will receive some answers and closure.

[Huffington Post]

—

Featured image courty of [Joshua Mayer via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teacher Killed by Student in Danvers MA appeared first on Law Street.