Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
Dr. Martha McCarthy: September 2010 Archives

September 2010 Archives

Mom teaching (1)

Image via Wikipedia

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Renee v. Duncan recently declined to invalidate a regulation under the federal No Child Left Behind Act that allows teachers participating in alternative routes to certification (licensure) to be considered "highly qualified." Under NCLB, a highly qualified teacher "has obtained full state certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes) or passed the state teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such state."

Some California plaintiffs alleged that they have been harmed by the challenged federal regulation because the state has allowed school districts to hire alternative route participants who are not as competent as those traditionally prepared through university programs. In California, teachers in internships receive support and training while they advance toward state certification. Plaintiffs in Renee argued that if the federal alternative route regulation were invalidated, California would stop considering participants in internship programs to be highly qualified. They also contended that alternative route teachers are hired mainly in school districts with high concentrations of low-income and minority students. 

The Ninth Circuit held that since California still could consider teachers participating in alternative licensure routes to be highly qualified even if the federal rule were struck down, a judicial declaration invalidating the NCLB regulation would not provide the redress sought. In short, since certification is a matter of state law, California could alter its definition of "highly qualified" regardless of what the federal government does.

The Renee plaintiffs claimed that California followed the federal lead in changing its requirements for licensure after NCLB was enacted and that the state would do so again if the federal regulation were dropped. But only the dissenting Ninth Circuit judge endorsed this position. He reasoned that since California modeled its definition of highly qualified on the NCLB, invalidating the federal regulation would have an impact on the hiring and assignment of teachers licensed through alternative routes in California. 

No one contests the NCLB goal of having highly qualified teachers or disagrees that teacher quality is one of the most important factors in improving the achievement of all students. The controversy focuses on how to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. 

Research is not yet available to refute or support the claim that teachers licensed through alternative routes lack instructional skills and are not getting sufficient preparation in pedagogy. Those making these claims need to present data to convince policy makers that traditional certification through university preparation programs produces better teachers. In the absence of such data, alternatives to traditional licensure for teachers and school leaders will continue to be considered and likely adopted in an increasing number of states. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Student Expression Outside of School

  |   Comments   |   Bookmark and Share
Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

Litigation is escalating rapidly involving student out-of-school expression on the Internet. In my last column, I explored a case in which students were disciplined for suggestive pictures posted on MySpace. This column addresses students' postings on Facebook and MySpace that are critical of school personnel. The case outcomes are determined primarily by how courts apply the landmark decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, in which the Supreme Court held that private student expression could not be the basis of school disciplinary action unless it threatened a substantial disruption of the educational process or interfered with the rights of others.

On the same day in February 2010, two different panels of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed somewhat contrary lower court decisions regarding students' MySpace parodies of their principals. In Layshock v. Hermitage School District, one Third Circuit panel ruled that a Pennsylvania school district failed to establish a sufficient connection to a school disruption for it to discipline a student who posted an unflattering mock profile of his principal on MySpace. Reasoning that schools have less control over students' off-campus expression than they do over their expression at school, the panel concluded that the student had a First Amendment right to post the parody. However, the court rejected his parents' assertion that the school's disciplinary action violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to direct the upbringing of their children.

A different Third Circuit panel in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District found that a student's MySpace profile of the principal, although created off campus, threatened a material disruption of the educational process. This panel held that the school did not have to substantiate that a disruption had occurred as long as there was a significant threat. The lower court had gone further in reasoning that a link to a disruption might not be required if the expression invades the rights of others. In this student's mock profile, the principal was depicted as a pedophile and sex addict. The court upheld suspension of the student for the online speech, finding no violation of the student's First Amendment rights.

The following week a Florida federal district court upheld a student's right to sue her principal for disciplinary action alleged to violate the student's free speech rights. The student established a Facebook page criticizing a teacher at school, and the court held that the principal did not have a sufficient expectation that the expression would create a disruption. In Nashville, Tenn., a First Amendment lawsuit may be brought by a student who was expelled for angry Facebook comments about his coaches, including the assertion, "I'ma kill em all." The school district contends that it has valid grounds to discipline students for such threats posted on social networks.

The controversies mentioned here represent the tip of the iceberg in this volatile area pertaining to online social networks. How much discretion school authorities have to discipline students for such off-campus postings that are critical of school personnel remains to be clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Education Update, Inc. All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2010.