At the Schoolhouse Gate

Virtual Schools: Godsend of Illegal Taxpayer Expense?

Do virtual schools amount to little more than home schooling at taxpayer expense? 

That's the question being debated in Wisconsin where the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Wisconsin Virtual Academy violated laws governing charter schools, open enrollment and teacher licensure. As a result of the ruling, millions of taxpayer dollars were withheld.  It is unclear if the state's Supreme Court will hear the case, but in the meantime, the state's legislative bodies are taking on the matter.  Interesting stuff!

Disciplined Teacher Database

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune posted today a national list of teachers who have been disciplined by their state certification boards. The list contains the names of over 20,000 teachers dating back 20 years who have blemishes on their teaching certifications. Possible infractions included "serious misconduct and relatively minor issues." The list contains major issues such as sexual misconduct or criminal convictions as well as small financial issues like failure to repay student loans. The list (pictured below with names blurred) only contains information for the state in which the infraction occurred, but provides no other detail on the incidents. Further, the list has been found to contain flaws by the Herald-Tribune staff (which of course begs the question of why they posted it in the first place).

Where to begin ...

Generally, I am not against the idea of a nationwide list of teachers that have committed sexual misconduct. There has been a lot of press lately about the sexual misconduct of teachers in schools and there have been calls to develop some sort of list. The idea, in principle, is acceptable with the proper procedures in place. But, this list leaves a lot to be desired. First, lumping in teachers that have student loan issues with teachers that committed sexual misconduct poses a serious problem to a named teacher's reputation interests. Otherwise qualified teachers may now find themselves under an unnecessary cloud of suspicion. Second, as stated in the AP article, releasing the names may violate some state confidentiality laws. Third, this type of list will seriously hamper the negotiating power of state disciplinary boards and likely increase litigation to keep disciplinary marks off teaching records. Fourth, even the publishers of the list acknowledge serious flaws across states. I am sure there is a fifth, sixth, and seventh reason that publishing this list is not a good idea as well. Unless and until we can develop a concise list of only proven teacher sexual misconduct cases, publishing thousands of names is likely to do far more harm than good.

Drug-using principal; Irony abounds

In Vernonia v. Acton, the Vernonia (OR) School District fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for the right to test and discipline students for drug use. Now the district is defending its drug-using elementary school principal. The Oregonian has the full story.

"Offensive" Variety Show Cancelled Then "Modified"

This hasn't become a formal legal issue yet, but there is an interesting situation developing in a school district on Long Island (NY).  The school board originally voted to cancel the show.  Then, a decision was made to reschedule the show which has been "cleaned up" for a later date (and the show will now be free; prior ticketholders were refunded).  Also, the teacher most directly responsible for overseeing the production was pulled from the classroom and placed on administrative leave, raising the ire of many students and parents.  If nothing else, this provides an interesting case study that raises, at the very least, important free speech and ethical issues.

Not with my paper, you don't!

Four high school students from Virginia and Arizona are suing Turnitin, a company that sells anti-plagiarism software to schools and universities, for unauthorized archival use of their papers. Turnitin uses archived versions of term papers to root out potential cheating by student writers.

OpEd: Legal obligations re: technology

Someone recently sent me the following quote from a school administrator (regarding legal concerns related to technology initiatives):

The school district is legally obligated to protect our students from the outside. It is not legally obligated to prepare them for the outside.

Ouch.

On its face, this statement gives precedence to legal concerns over whatever moral, professional, and/or ethical responsibilities schools have to prepare students for their future. This statement elevates CYA thinking over social justice concerns about technology access/usage and workforce preparation for disadvantaged students. This statement is reactive, not proactive, at a time when we desperately need forward-thinking school leaders.

Since when did schools not have a legal and societal mandate to provide an adequate education for students? As Kagan notes, every state’s constitution requires the state to provide its children with an ‘adequate’ education. Every community expects its local schools to prepare kids to be competent, functional adults in American society. How well do you think the ‘we don’t have a legal obligation to prepare your children for the world’ argument is going to play with parents and politicians?

We can reasonably disagree about the qualitative definition of what constitutes an ‘adequate education’ (e.g., we’ve seen this play out in both the school funding and special education arenas). But as people become increasingly aware that the Internet and digital technologies are necessary requirements for most adults’ productive lives and careers, this administrator’s statement that technology doesn’t fall under schools’ legally-required mandate to provide an adequate education for students is going to become increasingly unpalatable.