OK allows disabled students vouchers for private schools

Getting the vouchers, though is a "whole nuther ball of wax".

From Jay. P. Greene's blog post: Violators of OK’s Special Ed Voucher Law Get Good Mocking

let's not and say we did

In Michigan’s Wayne County, prosecutor Kym Worthy plans to meet this month with the Detroit City Council to discuss an ordinance she’s proposing to require parents to attend conferences. The most severe penalty would be three days in jail. It troubles her when she hears of Detroit schools that have 300 students, and just two parents will show up for conferences. A lack of parental involvement often leads to truancy, which leads to crime, says Ms. Worthy. She knows her proposal may be challenged by civil libertarians, “but at least we’ll get the conversation started.”

How Would You Grade Parent-Teacher Conferences
by Jeffrey Zaslow
Wall Street Journal
October 6, 2010, 9:40 AM ET

That's going to be one short conversation.

Number one: yes, indeed, civil libertarians are going to object. Strenuously.

Number two: do they teach logic in law school?

Number three: perhaps prosecutor Kym Worthy should ask teachers whether they want parents showing up for parent-teacher meetings on pain of arrest and incarceration.

And that pretty much covers it.

Next.

let's not and say we did
let's not and say we did, part 2
let's not and say we did, part 3

cranberry - define basic

cranberry wrote:

Define basic. Is it functioning on grade level, i.e., doing what a 5th grader is expected to do, when you're 10? If that's the definition, then what should one do with children who enter their 5th grade year above grade level? What are systems legally required to do?

Our school system doesn't have G&T, so that's never been an option for us. The school's answer has been, in general, that strong students should tutor weak students. Of course, a kid who's bored out of his gourd may not look like a strong student, because compliance with a rules based system may not make any sense to a bright 10 year old. Why should he pretend to make an effort, when the homework takes no effort? If the class matter is too easy, it will have no value for him -- or as much value as a worksheet requiring adults to name the days of the week would have for adults.

If a basic education means the provision of teachers and academic work, why must it fit the age, not the kid's academic level? Why must a 10 year old functioning at a 7th grade level attend 5th grade classes?

This is vitally important for our society. Just this week I saw an article citing a national shortage of nuclear engineers.

I submit that the kid who gets As on class tests, but doesn't hand in his homework, needs more interesting subject matter. Every student should have the privilege of being unable to ace tests. If students are passing tests with 100%, they aren't correctly placed, even if they're darned useful to others as tutors. On balance, they're more useful to society, in the long run, as nuclear engineers or lawyers, than as free, untrained tutors.

Robin on where we're headed

It does seem likely we are headed toward a period where the heterogeneous classroom will be the only safe way to avoid constitutional scrutiny. That clearly impacts what can go on in the classroom. Imagine the range of math problems that would be needed for cumulative review by 8th grade in such a classroom.

It looks like we will be left then with ineffective and inefficient instructional models.

Starfish Advocacy Association

I'm back!

Have yet to catch my breath (or read the comments thread sparked by Independent George) - but have just read a rave review of Starfish Advocacy & wanted to get it posted pronto.

Here's the review.

"The Mire" and the middle class squeeze

by Will Okun

Midway through another brilliant lesson on five-paragraph essays, chaos erupts in the back row among the students who do not care. My first-period English class crashes to a standstill as several failing students ignite a hysteria of insults. Other students stew in frustration as they wait for me to restore order and continue the lesson. Sitting in the front row, Kentrail is visibly exasperated that I cannot do my job. Shatara’s teeth and fists are clenched; she stares at me with accusatory anger. Finally, Ronetta screams, “Make them shut up!” Only after the temporary removal of the two instigators six minutes later does the class return to our discussion of thesis statements.

Class time not wasted on discipline is often squandered explaining make-up work to oft-absent students or reviewing remedial skills that should have been learned in early middle school. Intelligent, motivated students like Kentrail, Shatara and Ronetta suffer the most on such days when academic progress is glacial. Too often, their individual brightness is consumed in the mire of the whole. They should not be in this class; they should not be in this school.

“It’s frustrating because we go so slow. Teachers are distracted by students who are not really trying to do anything. They get more attention than the people who are trying to learn,” fumes Shatara. “It’s frustrating when you know that other schools are doing more and learning more.”

As I have described in previous blog posts, our school has too many students who are making no legitimate effort to learn or pass classes. These students attend periodically to socialize, to sell drugs or to alleviate boredom. Some are mandated to attend by the court of law or by a relative. Others are just too young to drop out. They do not carry book bags; they are not in possession of pen or paper. When the hallways and classrooms are in order, these students mourn, “It’s dead as hell in here.” The threat of F’s, parent conferences, detentions, and suspensions are pointless. Unfortunately, no one in the family seems to care. Only the threat of expulsion garners temporary compliance.

How can dedicated students like Shatara receive a proper education amid the havoc created by such a preponderance of “troublesome,” uncaring students?

I'd especially like to hear from teachers on this one.

My own take is that everything about this scene is wrong. Everything.

First of all, the disruptive kids are in trouble. At this point every one of them would likely "qualify" for special ed, which means the school is obligated under the Child Find provisions of IDEA to identify them, test them, and refer them for services. Which the school obviously has no intention of doing.

That would suit me fine if the school went straight to remediation. Pull the disruptive kids out of the class, hire a behavior analyst, and get a behavior management plan in place now with the people to staff it. Restart these students' educations at the spot where they fell, leaped, or were shoved off the track and go from there, using supervised homework sessions, daily assessments, and all the rest of the tools a precision teacher would bring to bear on the situation.

That's for the kids whose needs are manageable within a school serving the general population. The kids who are severely mentally ill and/or dangerous move to a therapeutic school. And, yes, these schools exist; our taxes pay for them.

Every student in this story is then educated in the "least restrictive environment" that meets his needs. For the severely oppositional kids, LRE is a therapeutic school; for the not-so-severely oppositional kids, LRE is a self-contained classroom with a low student-teacher ratio and one-to-one aides if necessary; for Kentrail and Shatara and Ronetta, the least restrictive environment is a classroom filled with other Kentrails and Shatars and Ronettas, and without a bunch of hooligans disrupting the proceedings.

None of that is going to happen, and few amongst us are going to know the reason why, that reason being the fact that schools are not legally obligated to educate the young people in their charge. A parent can sue a hospital that flubs his child's care; a parent may not sue a school that flubs his child's education. It's the child's fault if he didn't learn. Or the parents', or society's or what have you.

Not the school's.

So they do what they do. There's no reason not to.


the middle class, the schools, and the middle class squeeze

This situation has ramifications that go far beyond the damage being done to the individual students in this class.

The folks at Fordham may be cooing over the many "choices" available to the "middle class," but the reality is quite different, as I discovered when I dipped into The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke by Elizabeth Warren & Amelia Warren Tyagi:

In just twenty years [1981-2001], the number of women filing petitions for bankruptcy had, in reality, increased by 662 percent. As I soon discovered, divorced and single women weren’t the only ones in trouble; several hundred thousand married women filed for bankruptcy along with their husbands.

Our research eventually unearthed one stunning fact. The families in the worst financial trouble are not the usual suspects. They are not the very young, tempted by the freedom of their first credit cards. They are not the elderly, trapped by failing bodies and declining savings accounts. And they are not a random assortment of Americans who lack the self-control to keep their spending in check. Rather, the people who consistently rank in the worst financial trouble are united by one surprising characteristic. They are parents with children at home. Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will end up in financial collapse.

[snip]

Bankruptcy has become deeply entrenched in American life. This year, more people will end up bankrupt than will suffer a heart attack. More adults will file for bankruptcy than will be diagnosed with cancer. … And, in an era when traditionalists decry the demise of the institution of marriage, Americans will file more petitions for bankruptcy than for divorce…

[snip]

The rise in housing costs has become a family problem. Home prices have grown across the board (particularly in larger urban areas), but the brunt of the price increases have fallen on families with children. Our analysis shows that the median home value for the average childless couple increased by 26 percent between 19874 and 2001—an impressive rise in less than twenty years. (Again, these and all other figures are adjusted for inflation.) For married couples with children, however, housing prices shot up 78 percent during this period—three times faster. To put this in dollar terms, in 1984 the average married couple with young children owned a house worth $72,000. Less than twenty years later, a similar family bought a house worth $128,000—an increase of more than $50,000. The growing costs made a big dent in the family budget, as monthly mortgage costs made a similar jump, despite falling interest rates….

Why would the average parent spent so much money on a home?

[snip]

For many parents, the answer came down to two words so powerful that families would pursue them to the brink of bankruptcy: safety and education. Families put Mom to work, used up the family’s economic reserves, and took on crushing debt loads in sacrifice to these twin gods, all in the hope of offering their children the best possible start in life.

The best possible start begins with good schools, but parents are scrambling to find those schools.

[snip]

Everyone has heard the all-too-familiar news stories about kids who can’t read, gang violence in the schools, classrooms without textbooks, and drug dealers at the school doors.

[snip]

So what does all this have to do with educating middle-class children, most of whom have been lucky enough to avoid the worst failings of the public school system? The answer is simple—money. Failing schools impose an enormous cost on those children who are forced to attend them, but they also inflict an enormous cost on those who don’t.

[snip]

For most middle-class parents, ensuring that their children get a decent education translates into one thing: snatching up a home in the small subset of school districts that have managed to hold on to a reputation of high quality and parent confidence.

[snip]

A study conducted in Fresno (a midsized California metropolis with 400,000 residents) found that, for similar homes, school quality was the single most important determinant of neighborhood prices—more important than radial composition of the neighborhood, commute distance, crime rate, or proximity to a hazardous waste site.

[snip]

By way of example, consider University City, the West Philadelphia neighborhood surrounding the University of Pennsylvania. In an effort to improve the area, the university committed funds for a new elementary school.

The results? At the time of the announcement, the median home value in the area was less than $60,000. Five years later, “homes within the boundaries go for about $200,000, even if they need to be totally renovated.” The neighborhood is otherwise pretty much the same: the same commute to work, the sam distance from the freeways, the same old houses. And yet, in five years families are willing to pay more than triple the price for a home.

the cost to families of declining confidence in the schools

In the early 1970s, not only did most Americans believe that the public schools were functioning reasonably well, a sizable majority of adults thought that public education had actually improved since they were kids. Today, only a small minority of Americans share this optimistic view. Instead, the majority now believes that schools have gotten significantly worse. Fully half of all Americans are dissatisfied with America’s public education system, a deep concern shared by black and white parents alike.

That was in 2003.

Things are worse today.


once more, with feeling

In order to free families from the trap, it is necessary to go to the heart of the problem: public education. Bad schools impose indirect—but huge—costs on millions of middle-class families. In their desperate rush to save their children from failing schools, families are literally spending themselves into bankruptcy. The only way to take the pressure off these families is to change the schools.

The concept of public schools is deeply American. It is perhaps the most tangible symbol of opportunity for social and economic mobility for all children, embodying the notion that merit rather than money determines a child’s future. … As parents increasingly believe that the differences among schools will translate into differences in lifetime chances, they are doing everything they can to buy their way into the best public schools. Schools in middle-class neighborhoods may be labeled “public,” but parents have paid for tuition by purchasing a $175,000 home within a carefully selected school district.

It is time to sound the alarm that the crisis in education is not only a crisis of reading and arithmetic; it is also a crisis in middle-class family economics. At the core of the problem is the time-honored rule that where you live dictates where you go to school. Any policy that loosens the ironclad relationship between location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need for parents to pay an inflated price for a home just because it happens to lie within the boundaries of a desirable school district.

A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly. A taxpayer-funded voucher that paid the entire cost of educating a child (not just a partial subsidy) would open a range of opportunities to all children. With fully funded vouchers, parents of all income levels could send their children—and the accompanying financial support—to the schools of their choice. Middle-class parents who used state funds to send their kids to school would be able to live in the neighborhood of their choice—or the neighborhood of their pocketbook. Fully funded vouchers would relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting themselves to escape those schools.

We recognize that the term “voucher” has become a dirty word in many educational circles. The reason is straightforward: The current debate over vouchers is framed as a public-versus-private rift, with vouchers denounced for draining off much-needed funds from public schools. The fear is that partial-subsidy vouchers provide a boost so that better-off parents can opt out of a failing public school system, while the other children are left behind.

But the public-versus-private competition misses the central point. The problem is not vouchers; the problem is parental choice. Under current voucher schemes, children who do not use the vouchers are still assigned to public schools based on their zip codes. This means that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a bureaucrat picks the child’s school, not a parent. The only way for parents to exercise any choice is to buy a different home—which is exactly how the bidding wars started.

Short of buying a new home, parents currently have only one way to escape a failing public school: Send the kids to private school. But there is another alternative, one that would keep much-needed tax dollars inside the public school system while still reaping the advantages offered by a voucher program. Local governments could enact meaningful reform by enabling parents to choose from among all the public schools in a locale, with no presumptive assignment based on neighborhood. Under a public school voucher program, parents, not bureaucrats, would have the power to pick schools for their children—and to choose which schools would get their children’s vouchers. Students would be admitted to a particular public school on the basis of their talents, their interests, or even their lottery numbers; their zip codes would be irrelevant. Tax dollars would follow the children, not the parents’ home addresses, and children who live in an $50,000 house would have the same educational opportunities as those who live in a $250,000 house.

Unfortunately, the flaw in this logic is that many children living in $250,000 houses are in trouble, too.

Still, I'd take it.

Citizen Journalist Hit With Subpoena Intended to Intimidate

Childhood vaccination is one of the great public health successes of the last 50 years. However, a miniscule fraction of children and adults do have an adverse reaction to vaccines, so in 1988 the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established.

While in the late 1990s, responsible people proposed a hypothesis that the rise in incidence of autism was somehow correlated with the rise in the number and kind of vaccinations infants and young children received.

That's how science works, after all: noticing changes in the environment and wondering why the changes are occurring. Then there's the next step: conducting rigorous experiments to determine the relationships, if any, between the two observed phenomena. Then, if the predictions the hypothesis made are borne out by the experiment(s), then the hypothesis can be kept (and/or expanded). Otherwise, a responsible person must reject -- throw out, give up -- the hypothesis.

One hypothesis was that a mercury-derivative vaccine preservative, thimerasol, somehow contributed to, or caused, autism. Arthur Allen's 2002 article, The Not-So-Crackpot Autism Theory, explains some of the factors and the timeline. By March, 2003, researchers concluded:

On the basis of current evidence, we consider it improbable that thimerosal and autism are linked.

The research continued, however, investigating possible links between autism and exposure to mercury via vaccination. No correlation has ever been found. As David Gorski wrote in Mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs): A failed hypothesis

The scientific data, taken in totality, do not support a link between mercury in vaccines and autism.

In other words, there's no "controversy" any more -- there is no link between vaccination and autism. There's no valid "debate" about the role of vaccination in autism.

However, there is still a large and vocal claque that proclaims "never mind the science, there is too a connection."

One of the people opposing the claque is Kathleen Seidel, a citizen journalist at the website Neurodiversity.com, "honoring the diversity of human wiring". Lately, she has been closely following two related topics, litigation that claims that autism is a vaccine injury, and unresearched and dangerous "treatments" for autism that address the alleged vaccine injury. About the former, one attorney finds Seidel writes "fearless, systematically researched, and frequently brilliant ongoing critique of autism vaccine litigation."

It turns out that vaccine-injury litigation is a lucrative field, as pointed out in Seidel's March 24, 2008 post: The Commerce in Causation. In the last eighteen months, one attorney, Clifford Shoemaker, has been paid $584,449.28 by the VICP. Shoemaker's website continues to push the thoroughly disproved hypothesis that autism is related to vaccination.

Shoemaker also represents Rev. Lisa Sykes and Seth Sykes in their $20 million dollar personal-injury suit, seeking compensation for alleged harm to their son.

While Seidel has written several blog posts about the Sykes' suit and the scientific validity of treatments they have sought for their son, she has no other connection with the case. However, shortly after Seidel published The Commerce in Causation, Shoemaker served her with a wide-ranging and invasive subpoena in the Sykes case.

Walter Olson, writing at Overlawyered:

Instead, the first phrase that occurred to me on looking through the subpoena was "fishing expedition", and the second was "intimidation". Several clauses indicate that Shoemaker is hoping to turn up evidence that Seidel has accepted support from the federal government, or from vaccine makers, which she says she hasn't.

Olsen went on to say,

Should the subpoena somehow be upheld and its onerous demands enforced, it could signal chilly legal times ahead for bloggers

Seidel has entered a motion to quash the subpoena, and a number of bloggers have voiced support for Seidel and have condemned Shoemaker's actions.

What does the Seidel subpoena have to do with Kitchen Table Math? A couple of things. One, some of us have loved ones on the autism spectrum. Two, one of the mottos for KTM might be: show us the evidence. ABFF, writing at Whise Planet Is It Anyway?, defines "neurodiversity advocates do not object to reasonable diets and vitamins, but rather to harmful products and quack therapies." Isn't that what we do here, object to harmful products and quack...educational approaches?

Footnote: if you would like reliable commentary on recent findings on autism, you should read the blog Translating Autism: "Autism Research demystified: A summary of the latest scientific findings in the causes and treatments of Autism."

Shared Decision Making

I'm posting 3 comments up front, all stating better than I have the views of probably most parents here at ktm, and quite possibly around the country:

What is considered "crucial information", "proper guidance", necessary "knowledge" and/or "inappropriate" is at the discretion of the parent, not the school, nor the state. Parents should certainly have a voice and a choice in what their children are taught particularly in such a personal matter such as this.

This should not be the role of a teacher. Please let them teach academic content instead of using valuable teaching time for something that is clearly a parent's responsibility. The consequences of how they choose to teach their children is their own responsibility. To fail to obtain prior consent, communicate what will be taught with parents beforehand, or establish clear guidelines for the teaching of sexual education, is irresponsible and patently wrong.

Just as it is inappropriate for schools to impose a particular religion or political ideology upon the children in their charge, it is equally inappropriate for schools to teach human sexuality in ... a random and careless manner.

Let me add that in fact IUFSD did not intend for middle school kids to read these brochures. It was a mistake.

I agree strongly with the overall position.


Barry Garelick said...

In Fairfax County, VA, the school district sometimes conducts surveys of students about drug use and sexual activities. Prior to doing so they notify the parents of such survey, state that there will be questions of this nature and asks for parents' permission to allow the student to participate in such survey. I think this is the type of choice Steve H is alluding to and one which was not exercised in the case of the pamphlets. No one was notified, no one saw the pamphlets, and no parent was consulted as to whether they felt such material was appropriate or not.

This is all true.

Yes, the pamphlets were a mistake.

However, if the school had given parents the option of vetting the brochures beforehand, the mistake would not have been made.

Last school year, I made this exact point to the administration of the middle school. I pointed out that, where character education is concerned, you are always going to be dealing with values, which means you will never have consensus.

I suggested they set up a committee of teachers and parents to vet content in these areas, if only to protect themselves.


SteveH said...

"What is considered 'crucial information', 'proper guidance', necessary 'knowledge' and/or 'inappropriate' is at the discretion of the parent, not the school, nor the state. Parents should certainly have a voice and a choice in what their children are taught particularly in such a personal matter such as this."

Very well said.

There is a certain amount of arrogance hidden behind the idea that somebody has to do it, and that they (schools, county) have the knowledge and skills to do it. We see this in math, where schools are supposed to know something about the subject, but only teach math via their own pedagogical opinion. When parents (who are experts in the content) complain, they are ignored.

It's the same idea. Schools 10, Parents 0.

The key sticking point is prior knowledge and choice; not just with sex education, but everything.

The schools have too much power -- all schools, not just my own.

In NY state parents and teachers are entitled, by law, to Shared Decision Making.

Parents don't have it.

Nor do teachers.

common sense

from Steve H:

If my son is going to be part of a union school, then I (a parent) want a place at the negotiating table. Schools say they want involved parents, but it's only on their own inscrutable terms. If a school can't be run without video cameras in the halls, metal detectors at the doors, or random locker searches, then I want the option of sending my son to some other school. I don't want a black and white, legalistic school for my son who might get caught in some sort of Kafkaesque punishment scenario. I want a school run by adults who use common sense and can deal with the ambiguities of kids who are just beginning to mature. Isn't that what schools are all about these days - child centered discovery learning? Discovery doesn't work well with three strikes you're out. I don't want a school that caves in to litigation threats or uses the threats as justification for rules that make their jobs black and white.

My school, for several years now, has been using "our children's safety" as a justification to lock parents out of the building.

In fact, one of the kids came home from school two years ago and said the principal had told them that the reason they had to have lockdowns (another one coming right up) was that a divorced parent might come into the school and kidnap his child.

Now, I have no idea whether the principal actually said that....but I also don't know how this child, who was then in 6th grade, would get the idea that he had if he didn't.

Everything changes in middle school.

Suddenly, in middle school, parents are seen as a danger to their children. Not always, but often enough. It's in the air. e.g.: drinkin', druggin' celebrity parents.

I'm going to diagnose this phenomena as a case of projection.



from Barry G:

Our teen center (run by the local community center) has dances every Friday (7th and 8th grades). You can drop your kid off at whatever time, and pick your kid up at any time. Kids aren't allowed out of the building, however, unless accompanied by the parent/guardian picking the child up. That makes sense to me. They do everything by common sense. They know who I am, so if I want to go in and look for my daughter in the dance room, they let me do so. I notice that the new people they've hired who don't know me yet don't allow me in the dance room. The idea is they don't want strangers prowling around at a dance for pre-teens. Good idea. Common sense counts for a lot.

Everything here, and I mean everything, is handled as if Irvington were located in the middle of the Bronx in 1970.

Pretty soon we're going to be strip-searched every time we attempt to enter the school.


healthfair

character ed emergency

Monday's group punishment (did I mention the group punishment? That would be the one meted out to the kids on Friday after they'd run amok at the Health Fair & then -- who could have predicted this? -- gotten rowdy at the Assembly held immediately afterwards) ..... Anyways, the group punishment proceeded as planned on Monday. The entire school reported to the cafeteria at lunchtime instead of going outdoors to play and hang-out, as they normally do. As instructed, they came bearing pencil and paper, and were given a Problem-Solving character-ed exercise to complete.

Which is really pretty remarkable when you think about it.

Over the weekend I sent all concerned a copy of my board attorney friend's explanation of group punishment, an exegesis so clear, and so obviously composed by a real live attorney, that it would certainly strike fear in my heart if I were a principal planning a three-grade group punishment in a town filled to overflowing with attorneys.

But, no.

The group punishment proceeded as planned.

Why?

Because it wasn't a group punishment.

It was a group reflection. So many of the students had been "inappropriate" that the principal felt they needed to reflect on their actions.

At the time that this characterization arrived (I figured that's what it would be, group punishment masked as character ed), I just so happened to be visiting with a friend who is a clinical psychologist.

This is what she had to say:

Whether or not Mr. W. defines a “group reflection” as punishment, most people would recognize that keeping children from any portion of their recess is experienced as a punishment by the child. The technical term for this is time out from reinforcement. The fact that Mr. W. does not recognize his action as a punishment calls into question his judgment. If he does recognize his action as a punishment, but has chosen to call it a “reflection,” this calls into question his honesty.

Furthermore, the decision to pair a behavior the school wants to increase, i.e. writing, with a negative consequence will only serve to make the first behavior less frequent.

Finally, transparency in disciplinary matters is as important to managing children as it is to managing a school district. Trust fails when authority figures say one thing and mean another.

So: group punishment, bad.

Group reflection, also bad.

At this point, the character ed situation around here is fast becoming an emergency. It has to go.

Scenes from the group reflection:

• One student, handed the Problem Solving sheet by a teacher, said politely, "No thank you" and continued walking. Teacher didn't follow.
  

• Another student filled in the various sections of the Problem Solving sheet with random terms. Egg was one, as I recall. Also global warming.
  

• One of my favorite kids in the school wrote, under the section where the kids were supposed to come up with ways to prevent inappropriate behavior at an assembly from happening again, "Stop having guest speakers."

• C.'s picks: "Set up torture chambers" and "Have disruptive students fight each other to the death."
  

• My favorite of the lot: "Extend the poetry section in ELA."
  

When that last kid showed his answer to the math teacher, the math teacher laughed.

I love Irvington kids (I love some of the teachers, too). If I had to run a school full of Irvington kids - or any middle school kids anywhere on Earth - they'd chew me up and spit me out. But I love them.

Back when we all did our middle school survey (was that just a month ago??) I had to fill in a section tell some things I liked about the school.

I wrote, "the peers."


black and Hispanic students in a Natl School of Excellence
news from nowhere, redux
meanwhile, somewhere in a parallel universe
things my child learned about gay women in school this week
also playing in a parallel universe
email to the principal, part 2
further
ktm-2 readers make up a word problem for IMS
profiles in courage
new talent at the forum
my tax dollars at work
character education emergency
invitation to the dance



healthfair

can you FOIL the answers?

Answer is yes.

I can.

Just got off the phone with COOG, whose existence I know about thanks to Matthew K. Tabor.

Incredibly helpful.

COOG has full information on:

• Freedom of Information Law (NY state)
  

• Open Meetings Law (NY state)

state test coming right up (2006)
throwing money at the problem
more stuff only teachers can buy
help desk 1
state test coming right up (2007)
help desk 2
my life and welcome to it
inflammatory
canadianteacher.com
progress report
despair
28 out of 30

all the answers are belong to us
email to the math chair
second request
teacher's manual
it would be unusual
inflammatory
2 weeks off

can you FOIL the answers?
can you FOIL the answers, part 2

Doug on malice, etc.

How do you guys acquire so much knowledge??

First, IANAL; this is not legal advice; see a 1st amendment lawyer that you are paying for advice for real advice.

That said, on the defamation issue, the issue was commentary on public employees' performance of their duties. As I understand the law, that would put this firmly within the ambit of Sullivan v. NY Times, and they would have to prove "actual malice" to recover anything.

Actual malice requires a statement made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. (Note that statements that are clearly opinions are protected.) In practice, that means that it would be kicked on a pretrial motion. You might be even able to get sanctions against any lawyer that would seriously try to press this, since it's pretty clearly a frivolous claim.

Let's just say that I'm not even slightly worried about the statements that a posted in those threads, and I got a bit heated at times.

Can I Record School Board Meetings in New York State?

I'd like to express my gratitude at the opportunity to post here on KTM - as a long-time reader of this site, I'm honored.

So, let's get down to business and address a question that pops up so often that I've decided to cross-post the answer on my own site.

Can an interested party record a school board or school committee meeting in New York State? [NJ and PA are touched upon as well.]

The short answer: Absolutely, provided that the recording process and its devices don't disrupt the proceedings.

Remember, a public meeting constitutes quorum gathering to discuss issues. This means that you're free to record regular school board meetings, budget hearings, committee meetings, etc. - any time there's quorum/over half the official body in attendance with the intent to conduct public business, go ahead.

But school boards aren't always into public records and accountability. When your New York State school district denies that you're allowed to tape a meeting, cite the following precedents:

• Mitchell v. Board of Education of Garden City UFSD, 113 A.D.2d 924 (2nd Dept. 1985). This established that unobtrusive, handheld tape recording devices were acceptable.


• People v. Ystueta, 99 Misc.2d 1105 (District Court, Suffolk County, 1979). Established that prohibiting recording devices violated public policy.


• NYS Dept. of State Committee on Open Government OML-AO-3037, June 18, 1999. Backs up People v. Ystueta.


• Feldman v. Town of Bethel, 106 A.D.2d 695 (3rd Dep't 1984). Use of recording device may not cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or disturb the meeting.

Then there's Csorny, et al. v. Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, et al. (Index No. 31583/00) which not only upholds the above rulings, but cites supporting precedent in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey:

The overwhelming weight of authority from other states likewise supports our holding herein. In Hain v Board of Directors of Reading School Dist. (163 Pa Commw 479, 641 A2d 661), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania struck a school board rule prohibiting the videotape recording of public meetings as violative of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act. In Maurice River Tp. Bd. of Educ. v Maurice River Tp. Teachers Assn. (193 NJ Super 488, 475 A2d 59, affg 455 A2d 563), the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, similarly held that a school board could not enact a blanket prohibition against videotaping of public meetings, as such a rule violated New Jersey's Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 10:4-6 et seq; see also Sudol v Borough of North Arlington, 137 NJ Super 149, 348 A2d 216 [NJ Super]).

There ya go, kids. Record at will.

And when the Board members freak out, hand them a sheet of paper citing these precedents and make it very clear that their ignorance of the law in no way supersedes either statute or precedent.