The Classroom Marketplace: Ideas Welcome

Since my original years in college, studying for a dual major in political science and American history with a minor in education, I have looked to Tinker v. DesMoines (1969) as a reflection of my educational philosophy. This week my school law professor speaks eloquently to how the majority decision in this case supports the idea of the schoolhouse as a ‘marketplace of ideas’: “In this view, it could be easily argued that the school’s squelching of John and Mary Beth Tinker’s free speech rights was actually detrimental to the fundamental mission of the public school – to teach students to think and express themselves independently.” (personal communication, Hopson, M., October 31, 2010) I could not possibly state my position more accurately than this. The most formative portions of my education have historically come, and continue to come, through hearing opposing viewpoints expressed in a thoughtful, reasoned manner. This very blog gives life to lectures, readings, and endless pages of case law because others share ideas and perspectives that I would not have access to in my own narrow history of experience. In last week’s discussion board, a colleague discussed the value of dynamic exchange of differing ideas when she writes, “An open forum is what teaches our children how to navigate through the waters of citizenship. To be able to speak their minds with tact and still be friends in the end is a necessary skill that I want my children to have.” (personal communication, Kelly, J., October 26, 2010) Again, I could not possibly improve on her words or her sentiment. I can only add that I do recognize how working to balance ideology and reality is a legitimate challenge for leaders in all areas of governance, including in education. Part of educating a citizenry includes teaching the rules and mores of their society: civil exchange of ideas cannot occur without such knowledge. So, in my mind, the boundary between holding dear the value of discourse and teaching children the appropriate mechanism for that exchange is the thin line on which campus leaders walk. For me, my right and responsibility to expression of ideas and my responsibility to foster exchange of ideas remains at the heart of my call to teach.

Works Cited:
Tinker v. DesMoines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Cyberbullying is Not "Someone Else's Problem"

With online behavior, just as with mathematics or American history, we instruct students so that they can go out into the larger world armed with the tools of an educated citizenry. In the digital age, this area of instruction cannot be neglected. Cyberbullying has received little in the way of direct professional development focus in my school district. I think that this might prove to be a costly mistake if not rectified. Cases of cyberbullying pepper the news with stories of horror: in a case out of Massachusetts, several students have been indicted on a variety of criminal charges, including assault, in connection with the suicide of student Phoebe Prince. The allegations of vicious bullying against the student are shocking: “students said Phoebe was called ‘Irish slut’ and ‘whore’ on Twitter, Craigslist, Facebook, and Formspring”. Reports state that, in Phoebe’s case, instances of cyberbullying and more traditional bullying tactics went hand in hand. (Kennedy, 2010)

We swiftly and strictly respond to more traditional instances of bullying, and we work to be proactive in educating our staff and students in recognizing the signs and signals of bullying offenders and victims. Yet because electronic media is not a regular part of elementary instruction in our district, teachers on campus do not commit class time to education about cyberbullying and other online behaviors. HEB ISD’s Student Code of Conduct states that “cyber bullying will not be tolerated and is considered a violation of the Student Code of Conduct.” (Board of Trustees, Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD, 2010) This is an excellent start; however, without specific training on the nature of cyberbullying and techniques for incorporating a discussion about cyberbullying into the curriculum, teachers are left adrift when faced with classroom realities. Aimee Bissonette cautions against exactly this: “Well-crafted policy is important, but it alone will not remedy the cyberbullying problem. As Shariff and Johnny (2007) point out in their article Cyber-Libel and Cyber-Bullying: Can Schools Protect Student Reputations and Free-Expression in Virtual Environments?, policy alone ‘does not teach students to think about the impact of their actions; nor does it engage them in dialogue about how they can address the challenges that new technologies bring, in an informed, thoughtful and coherent manner.’” (Bissonette, 2009, p. 11) As I mentioned in an earlier post, I plan to develop online courseware via Moodle, which can include opportunities for online discussion between students. My school district takes this professional development opportunity to open a discussion with teacher about online behaviors, but because the course is optional, it is not adequate for informing all teachers. As I have opportunities to help guide professional development opportunities for my campus, I will campaign for professional development that gives my entire campus clear guidance in monitoring for and addressing cyberbullying.


Works Cited:
Bissonette, A. (2009). Cyber Law: Maximizing Saftey and Minimizing Risk in Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Board of Trustees, Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD. (2010). 2010-2011 Student Code of Conduct. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from HEB ISD district website: http://schoolctr.hebisd.edu/education/page/download.php?fileinfo=Q29kZV9vZl9Db25kdWN0Xy1fRW5nbGlzaF8tXzIwMTAtMjAxMS5wZGY6Ojovd3d3L3NjaG9vbHMvc2MvcmVtb3RlL2ltYWdlcy9kb2NtZ3IvNzA5Ml9maWxlXzY0Njk3X21vZF8xMjg2MjAzNTI4LnBkZg== Kennedy, H. (2010, March 29). Phoebe Prince, South Hadley High School's 'new girl,' driven to suicide by teenage cyber bullies. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from NY Daily News.com: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/29/2010-03-29_phoebe_prince_south_hadley_high_schools_new_girl_driven_to_suicide_by_teenage_cy.html

Facebook and the Court of Public Opinion: Lessons Learned from School Law

I have thoroughly enjoyed, thus far, the experience of graduate school, in large part because I have had the privilege of focusing on topics that were of direct interest and benefit to my future career. While I can say that my current course has been incredibly informative, its practical application has been at times less clear. This is particularly true in terms of teacher evaluation and remediation. Because it has never been my intention to pursue a position as a campus principal, my focus has not been on how to develop such particular skills of personnel management as evaluation and remediation of staff. Rather, as a peer leader, I see the knowledge gained as a responsibility to lead by example. This course has, more than anything else, changed how I conduct my online personal life, and thereby the guidance that I give to others. For the 2010-2011 school year my district implemented new policies for employees regarding social networking sites. Prior to my investigation of the coursework and current case law in this area, the new policies gave me little pause. That has all changed. I now cast a much wider net as I consider the implications of any item that is posted not only on my site, but on other’s sites that reference me by name. While in certain circumstances I still maintain my rights to constitutionally protected free speech, U.S. Courts have given school districts broad discretion in governing the public perception a teacher presents. This line is generally drawn along two fronts: one, is the public speech a matter of public concern (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968); and two, have I shown competence and professionalism in other areas of my position? (Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, 1977) The implications for me are then twofold. On the one hand, a Facebook post announcing my support of the Rally to Restore Sanity is protected as a pronouncement of public concern, so long as my job performance has not otherwise be compromised. On the other hand, a tagged photo of me wearing a risqué Halloween costume will not be protected regardless of my other work circumstances. Where I falter is in the gray area of off-campus activities. (Bissonette, 2009, p. 31) Generally the advice for teachers is that for any person living in the public eye: the appearance of impropriety is as damaging as the fact of it. Much of teacher’s life is lived in the court of public opinion, and the discrepancy between what ought to be allowable conduct and what is in fact allowable conduct is a foggy hollow.
Works Cited:
Bissonette, A. (2009). Cyber Law: Maximizing Saftey and Minimizing Risk in Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mt. Healthy Independent School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

Student Speech in Discussion Groups: The Safety Net of the Limited Forum

Recently I completed a second round of professional development for use of the Moodle online course platform, which included a segment on developing discussion forums as part of the coursework. It is an amazing interface between teacher and students where students can receive resources, submit assignments, and share ideas with their peers. Throughout the training, however, I found myself considering issues of student speech and of my role in balancing student rights and an appropriate student learning environment. Prior to my coursework in school law, I would not have given such issues more than brief consideration. Now I realize that this area is still a battleground for determining boundaries for school accountability and student freedom, and those of us who jump into the breach must keep our eyes on that constantly moving target. In particular, the concept of ‘open’ vs. ‘limited’ forum is a vital one, addressed in the Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). As I work to develop discussion groups in my coursework, this decision guides me in framing the expectations for my students in this limited classroom forum. In her book, Cyber Law, Aimee Bissonette underscores the need for proactive steps to alleviate problems with inappropriate student online conduct before it starts: “Schools need to draft and enforce school policies regarding appropriate conduct on campus. In fact, such policies are critical for schools that do not want to be held liable for inappropriate use of the school Internet system.” (Bissonette, 2009, p. 25) I realize that because my campus has not previously utilized online discussion forums with students, I will be trailblazing this new area of technology integration. My successes, and failures, in maintaining a healthy, respectful online classroom environment will set the path for many of my colleagues.

Works Cited:
Bissonette, A. (2009). Cyber law: maximizing saftey and minimizing risk in classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Weighing In on Boobies, Wristbands, and Symbolic Speech

School districts all over the country are banning "I Love Boobies" wristbands. Students all over the country are howling in outrage. Many of my colleagues both a school and in my graduate course are firmly on the side of the school districts. Well . . .
At the risk of showing my stripes a bit, I’m afraid I’m going to have to side largely with students on this issue. While some might believe the word ‘boobies’ is not in the best possible taste, I think that as educators we are crossing a thin but civilly important line. I talked with my mother, who recalls in detail the controversy surrounding the black armbands of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, who reminded me that, like any other distinctive clothing statement, some students wore the armbands for more superficial reasons than higher ethical or moral ones. This did not in any way diminish the intention of many to speak a cherished truth, and it did not diminish the rights of students to express their belief systems as such.
These bracelets have a clear message to those who subscribe to it, and the simple wearing of a band, whose font is approximately 14 point, on the wrist is not of itself disruptive to learning. I also believe that within the bounds of our society, this statement does not qualify as ‘lewd’ or ‘vulgar’, regardless of whether we think the wording is ideal. In my mind, the wearing of these bands by students passes both prongs of the Tinker test. I think that there are moments when the disruption to learning is caused not by students, but by us.
Works Cited:
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

Not Good Enough

While I believe that the idea that 100% of students will meet a particular level of proficiency regardless of LEP or special education status is statistically unsound, I believe wholeheartedly in the idea that all children can make significant gains, and that education can, and should, have accountability to student success. I think that at times in the dialogue and even legistatively, we confuse the idea of achievement to standard with one of closing the achievement gap that exists in US education. A study conducted by research fellows at John Hopkins University revealed shocking, sobering results: “There are currently between 900 and 1,000 high schools in the country in which graduating is at best a 50/50 proposition. In 2,000 high schools, a typical freshman class shrinks by 40% or more by the time the students reach their senior year. This represents nearly one in five regular or vocational high schools in the U.S. that enroll 300 or more students.” (Balfanz & Legters, 2004) As a nation, we are failing these students. Student populations will always have a percentage that are not achieving to the level of their peer group, but the idea that outside factors determine this is, to me, fatalistic. Certainly home situations are immensely challenging for some of our students, but this cannot be the hill upon which education dies. In a report out of Columbia University, authors highlight this distinction: “'Proficiency for all,' which implies the elimination of variation within socioeconomic groups, is inconceivable. Closing the achievement gap, which implies elimination of variation between socioeconomic groups, is extraordinarily difficult, but worth striving for.” (Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2006) While it may be true that doctors, lawyers, and CEO's cannot achieve perfection, this continues to be the standard for which they strive. A doctor endeavors his career, not to settle for acceptable losses, but to preserve the health and quality of life for every patient. A CEO is expected to maximize his results using every available resource, and is not rewarded for mediocrity. Newark mayor Cory Booker stated that, “We cannot have a superior democracy with an inferior education system.” (Salata, 2010) Will I have 100% of my students every year achieve to state standards? Mostly likely I will not. But as educators, none of us can shy away from the goal of student success in every case. I am not ever going to be the educator that says to a parent, “I’m so sorry, but your child’s life up to this moment has just been too difficult. His failure to meet standards is guaranteed.”

Works Cited:
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the Dropout Crisis. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. (2006). Proficiency for All - an Oxymoron. New York: Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Salata, S. (Executive Producer). (2010, September 24). The Oprah Winfrey Show [Television broadcast]. Chicago: Harpo Studios.

Measure of Success

I believe that the alignment to standards that lies at the heart of NCLB has great value. I believe that every child deserves academic rigor in their grade-level content areas, suited to their particular strengths and weaknesses. As a teacher committed to my craft and to the mission of academic success for all students, I do not quail at the idea of student, teacher, and school accountability. As a parent of a special-needs child, I see every day an academic world available to my son that would have been unthinkable ten years ago. And yet, I also see a system that fails the individual by focusing on the group. Year after year I am frustrated by the basic statistical flaws of our standards-based accountability. We speak to our stakeholders about growth, about adequate yearly progress; yet, we base the public assessment of school success on a “snapshot” that is not only inconsistent statistically from one year to the next, but lacks the vital growth component that assesses true academic progress at a student level:

Current state accountability systems rely heavily upon performance standards to make judgments about the quality of education. Specifically, accountability systems constructed according to federal adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements use annual “snap-shots” of student achievement relative to state performance standards to make judgments about education quality. . . Though appropriate for making judgments about the achievement level of students, they are inappropriate for judgments about educational effectiveness. (Betebrenner, 2009)

I teach fifth grade math and science, and few places feel the real-time stressors of NCLB as acutely as teachers in my position. I do worry about whether or not we sacrifice depth for breadth in content, and I do worry about reaching the many at the sacrifice of truly teaching the one: the one who needs the most pulling or the one who needs the most pushing. Mostly, however, I worry about how the accountability system might be self-defeating - for schools, teachers, students - that strive year after year against unbelievable obstacles. If a student improves 150 points on an assessment scale score, how do we in good conscience tell that child, that parent, that teacher, that it is simply not enough? Who, really, has failed?

Works Cited:
Betebrenner, D. W. (2009, April 6). Growth, Standards, and Accountability. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment: http://www.nciea.org/publications/growthandStandard_DB09.pdf

On the agenda this week in EDLD 5344: School Law - IDEA 2005: ARD and IEP. Please take a moment and add your thoughts to the mix!