Status Update: From children’s privacy rights to parental techniques, opinions have been circulating about children and the appropriate use of social media. Check out a CNN opinion here, and a Houston mom’s opinion here.

Satisfying Snack?: If you use laundry detergent and you have small children, read this. If you like to think everything tastes as good as it looks, you should probably read this too.

System Error: It may be hard to imagine, but playing video games could be bad for you. Read these articles, then turn off your laptop and go read a book. From Fox News or CNN, if you prefer.

Nudist Colony Update of the Month: Children being raised in nudist communities and how they feel about it.

One argument frequently contended by opponents of same-sex marriage is that it is harmful to children who are derived from such a union.  However, a thorough investigation of the academic research reveals that this line of reasoning is not so clear-cut.   In a recent publication of the Journal of Marriage and Family, the leading research journal in the field of family systems, Timothy Biblarz, PhD and Judith Stacey, PhD highlight the results from their meta-analysis of scientific studies conducted between 1990 and 2010 that investigate the differences in parenting and child outcomes between same-sex and different-sex couples.  In the article, they reflect that:

Although researchers who examine the impact of parental sex orientation on children reported few significant differences in child outcomes between children raised by heterosexual and lesbian couples (e.g., Tasker, 2005; Telingator & Patterson, 2008), the overwhelming public consensus is that children raised by both a mother and father develop more successfully.

Due to the minimal number of studies in existence that examine male, same-sex couples, findings from Biblarz and Stacey’s study are primarily applicable to female, same-sex couples.  Overall, there are far more similarities than differences among children raised by same-sex couples compared to children raised by different-sex couples.  In regards to the few significant differences, the majority of those discrepancies are in favor of children reared by same-sex couples.  For example, children parented by same-sex, female couples, as compared with children parented by different-sex couples:

• Have greater security of attachment and fewer behavior problems
• Are more likely to discuss emotional issues
• View their parents as more available and dependable
• Exhibit less aggressive behavior
• Are more tolerant of gender nonconformity and display less gender chauvinism than their peers

Biblarz and Stacey conclude that, the research to date, does not support the conclusion that children raised by both a mother and a father develop more successfully than children reared by same-sex couples.  “Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation).”  The consensus of scientific studies on parenting appears to support the conclusion that “two committed, compatible parents” in a “low-conflict relationship” generally facilitate the most successful child outcomes.

In light of this research, the Defense of Marriage Act and the efforts of legislators in the forty-one states that currently ban same-sex marriage, may in fact be demeaning the family as a social institution rather than protecting it.  This is because, researchers have documented the significant positive effects for both couples and children that result from being a part of a marital union.  In their book, The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite, PhD and Maggie Gallagher, PhD highlight these positive outcomes.  In regards to children:

Whether or not parents get and stay married can have long-term consequences for their children, and even their children’s children.  On average, children of married parents are physically and mentally healthier, better educated, and later in life, enjoy more career success than children in other family settings.  Children with married parents are also more likely to escape some of the more common disasters of late-twentieth-century childhood and adolescence.

Waite and Gallagher’s conclusion that children from married families have better outcomes than children from single-parent families has also been extended to children living in cohabiting families.  Susan Brown, PhD and numerous other social science researchers, have discovered that children have worse outcomes when they grow up in cohabiting families as compared to married families.  These findings are important to the debate about same-sex marriage because states that prohibit these marriages are depriving children reared in these unions of the substantial benefits derived from growing up in a family supported by the marital bond.  Judith Seltzer, PhD succinctly summarizes the significant impact of familial relationships in her journal article, Families Formed Outside of Marriage.

Families matter for individuals.  What happens in our families affects how we live our lives, whether we are rich or poor, the languages we speak, the work we do, how healthy we are, and how we feel…A common understanding about the obligations and rights of family members contributes to the institutionalization of family relationships.  General consensus in public opinion about who should be counted as a family member and consistent laws also institutionalize relationships.

To protect the family as an institution, we need continuity in how we define the family so that we can better promote strong and healthy familial relationship.  Legislators need to consider the fact that by banning same-sex marriage, they are further fragmenting family relationships and denying to the children of these unions the benefits of being raised in a marital relationship.

“In America, education is still the great equalizer.” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

Americans hold a nearly universal belief that education can be a “great equalizer.” Despite the problems with public education today, the belief that education can help overcome any obstacle still rings true. However, little attention is typically paid to the educational systems inside juvenile detention facilities, schools that attend to some of our nation’s most troubled youth.

Kids in detention facilities face a host of complications that traditional students usually don’t encounter: experience early in life with the criminal justice system, long periods of time away from family and friends, and (many times) low levels of prior academic achievement. Education could be the pathway toward a brighter, productive future. Instead, juveniles often encounter “alternative” schools with low or no academic expectations, teachers whose main goal is to “keep the peace” during school hours, and little or no opportunity for substantive learning or school credit.

A handful of folks who determined to change the way juvenile detention education operates have shown the nation the way schools in jails should work. The rest of this post will outline three inspiring stories of individuals who have helped kids caught up in the juvenile justice system get on the right track. Each story will be brief, but will include links to where to find additional information online.

The Maya Angelou Academy (See Forever School)

In 1997, James Forman, Jr. and David Domenici were fed up with the options for court-involved kids. They resigned from their jobs as attorneys in Washington, D.C., and set out to start a public school that actively pursued students who were involved with the juvenile justice system. The motivating force for Forman and Domenici was that juvenile prison seemed to be the only solution that existed at the time for many of their clients.

Forman and Domenici started small. They purchased a pizza delivery business in Northwest D.C. and told kids that if they came two hours each night for tutoring, they could work at the pizzeria and learn how to run a small business. Eventually, kids ran every aspect of the business. With a few months of success under their belts, as well as $50,000 raised by Reid Weingarten and current Attorney General Eric Holder, Forman and Domenici decided to open the See Forever School.

The idea to open a school for juvenile offenders was not a novel one. Many exist throughout the nation. The novel part of Forman and Domenici’s idea was to institute (what now seem like) common sense initiatives to benefit their students. They made their school day run from 9:30 AM until 8:00 PM. They continued to teach their students small business skills by running the pizzeria. They built individual and group counseling into the schedule. In their first year, they brought in sixty volunteer tutors and mentors to work with kids. A close culture was cultivated by eating meals together, having students “shout-out” great things their classmates were doing, and working closely with students’ families (when kids did great things and not so great things). Finally, Forman and Domenici wrote a project-based curriculum to make the academic ideas they were teaching seem more “real.”

In 1998, after their first successful year, Forman and Domenici chartered their school, made it open-enrollment, and renamed it (with the help of the kids) the Dr. Maya Angelou Academy.

However, Forman and Domenici weren’t done. Seeing the success of the See Forever School, the new head of Washington D.C.’s juvenile justice agency asked Forman and Domenici in November 2006 to run the school inside D.C.’s facility for juvenile delinquents. The pair took on the challenge. They faced a school with a notoriously negative culture, low teacher morale, and little motivation among students. Forman and Domenici started by hiring new, dedicated faculty. They made the school less drab. They cultivated an environment where students were “scholars” and academic achievement was rewarded and celebrated.

The most innovative change Forman and Domenici instituted was to create a curriculum broken up into “eight modular units” that awarded credits every month. Each unit had a new theme. The shorter units served two purposes. First, if kids didn’t understand a concept, they would only have to wait a few weeks until they could start fresh with a new unit. Second, kids are typically only housed in juvenile detention facilities for around nine months. Therefore, because kids come and go all year, a regular semester system wouldn’t allow kids to earn credits toward a high school diploma. A shorter grading unit would allow kids to continue to earn credits inside the prison school, and therefore their time would not have been a “waste.”

David Domenici and James Forman have written about their experiences in two new books. A chapter in Starting Up: Critical Lessons from 10 New Schools tells the story of the See Forever School (Dr. Maya Angelou Academy) in its first year. A chapter in Justice for Kids: Keeping Kids Out of the Juvenile Justice System tells the story of Forman and Domenici’s reform of D.C.’s juvenile detention facility.

Cook County Juvenile Probation Educational Advocacy Unit

Annie E. Casey Foundation’s JDAI HelpDesk provides a glimpse into Cook County’s success over the last several years in reducing the number of kids in their juvenile detention facilities:

Cook County recently achieved the lowest average daily population in its detention facility since its implementation of JDAI [Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative] in 1994 – reducing the number of youth from 750 to 287. In addition to a robust continuum of detention alternatives, Cook County offers a clinical division to limit the unnecessary detention of youth challenged with mental health and substance abuse issues. Evidence-based programming and the use of intermediate sanctions for technical violations of court orders, help to sustain reductions in detention. A Juvenile Advisory Council provides opportunities for youth input into policy and practice, while the Court and its juvenile justice system partners continue to emphasize community outreach and explore all viable options to provide pro-social opportunities for youth and their families.

What’s behind Cook County’s success? In 2006, Cook County created a special “Educational Advocacy Unit” (EAU) within the county’s Juvenile Probation Department. Donna Neal, who supervises the unit, spoke about the program and its impact at the March 2012 “Education Advocacy Conference” sponsored by Dallas JDAI and the Dallas Public Defender’s Office.

Field probation officers can refer juveniles to the new unit if one of the following conditions is met:

The EAU probation officers (called “Education Advocates”) create an Educational Report that includes all complications a student may have related to school, as well as solutions that will be sought by the Education Advocate and student. The Education Advocate also represents the student at school meetings and court hearings on issues related to schooling.

So far, Cook County EAU’s results have been shocking. And the reason the program has been so successful is because the program sets students up for success. The program provides a positive path forward that stands in stark contrast to a life of crime and poverty. JDAI has posted a presentation created by Cook County EAU that outlines some of the program’s early positive results.

Carroll Academy Lady Jaguars

The New York Times last week published a fascinating look inside a day school for female juvenile offenders in Carroll County, Tennessee. The school has taken a unique team-based approach to helping the troubled teens turn their lives around. Carroll Academy serves 80 girls, all who have been in trouble with the law. Many have substance abuse issues. Some are consistent truants. Only one child lives with her mother and father.

The purpose of the program is to rehabilitate the girls and prepare them to return to their home schools. The NY Times series focuses on Carroll Academy’s basketball team, made up almost entirely of girls who have never played or enjoyed sports in their lives, much less basketball. When one girl tests positive for drugs in the series’ first part, the girl is suspended from the team, but she is not kicked out school. The school is dedicated to truly changing lives, and it was refreshing to read that the school’s response wasn’t to tally another expulsion on the girl’s academic record.

The complete series was published last week in five parts. It is definitely worth reading–my summary here doesn’t do it the justice it deserves. You can start with Part 1 here.

Conclusion

The unifying theme in each of these stories is that a group of dedicated folks took action to restore the true and original purpose of the juvenile justice system: rehabilitation. Too often, juveniles are sentenced for mere punishment, with no attention paid to that child’s longterm wellbeing. Even though others may have given up on the students at the See Forever Schools, Cook County Juvenile Probation, or Carroll Academy, the actions taken by the heroes in the stories above have shown that kids, as troubled as they may be, are worth fighting for.

A great deal of today’s knowledge on the benefits of early childhood education stems from a research project commenced nearly fifty years ago in a small Michigan town called Ypsilanti.

The Perry Preschool Project, developed by a school administrator named David Weikart, examines the lives of 123 African Americans born into poverty in the late 1950s that were “at high risk of failing school”:

From 1962–1967, at ages 3 and 4, the subjects were randomly divided into a program group that received a high-quality preschool program based on HighScope’s participatory learning approach and a comparison group who received no preschool program. In the study’s most recent phase, 97% of the study participants still living were interviewed at age 40. Additional data were gathered from the subjects’ school, social services, and arrest records.

The preschool program had an academic focus, aiming to teach low-income students some of the basic skills needed for success in the early grades. Teachers also focused on the students’ cognitive development. Students in the “preschool” group were active participants in their education. The study is innovative because it is still yielding data; every few years, researchers interview and track down data about the program’s participants. At age 40, the contrast between the “non-preschool” and “preschool” groups is staggering (see graph below).

Source: HighScope (http://www.highscope.org/)

HighScope has also put together an excellent video and a comprehensive report about their research results for their Perry Preschool Project participants through age 40. For those interested, the HighScope website has a wealth of detail about the lives of the participants. In sum, the results show that participants in the “preschool” program group have performed better throughout their formal education, have made more money at work, and have had more stable family lives.

Why is all of this important? Despite these stunningly clear findings, legislatures across the country still don’t establish and fund proper early childhood programs. Programs like those studied in the Perry Preschool Project can help low-income students compete with their more affluent peers if the support continues throughout their education. In 1965, the federal government allocated Head Start funding for states. However, the recent economic downturn made abundantly clear that pre-kindergarten and early childhood education programs are often the first programs to be cut. Pre-K and similar programs are often seen as “optional.” Families in some cities are even having difficulty enrolling their children in kindergarten programs, which are considered optional under the law in many states (including Texas).

In 1997, Geoffrey Canada took matters into his own hands. He founded Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), an organization that pulls together all of the educational and social services that could help low-income families in one Harlem neighborhood. Canada’s program, the focus of the recent documentary Waiting for Superman and Paul Tough’s book Whatever It Takes, serves families inside a 97-block Harlem neighborhood (called a “promise neighborhood”). The premise of HCZ is that kids born into poverty need support from cradle-to-college (and beyond). Therefore, HCZ focuses on the entire family and all of the issues that burden the typical low-income communities. HCZ’s “umbrella” services start at birth and go above and beyond any traditional educational program.

Since founding Harlem Children’s Zone in 1997, Canada has started charter schools in his Harlem neighborhood. However, he also serves families whose children attend other area schools (as long as they are in the 97-block radius). David Brooks has written in the NY Times about the dramatic gains achieved by students attending HCZ schools and/or receiving HCZ services:

Forgive some academic jargon, but the most common education reform ideas — reducing class size, raising teacher pay, enrolling kids in Head Start — produce gains of about 0.1 or 0.2 or 0.3 standard deviations. If you study policy, those are the sorts of improvements you live with every day. Promise Academy produced gains of 1.3 and 1.4 standard deviations. That’s off the charts. In math, Promise Academy eliminated the achievement gap between its black students and the city average for white students. Let me repeat that. It eliminated the black-white achievement gap.

Geoffrey Canada has found an approach to educating low-income students that works. Canada has found a way to break the cycle of poverty.

The most impressive part of Canada’s story is that much of his funding comes from private sources. Canada’s groundbreaking success has come without endless amounts of taxpayer dollars funding his program.

Now, Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone has finally started to catch the attention of national policymakers. Several years ago, President Obama approved grants for 20 cities to establish “promise neighborhoods” in areas with especially high-need. Neighborhood Centers, Inc. has led Houston’s “promise neighborhood” in a 3.7 square mile section of the Gulfton area. Results from Houston’s “promise neighborhood” are starting to trickle in, and it looks good for kids involved with the program.

Facebook Issues Guide for School Counselors. Facebook issued a special guide this week targeted for school counselors. The guide was contains best practices for teaching students how to use social networking safely.

California Legislature Passes Online Bullying Law. The bill, which passed the California Assembly unanimously this week, would give more power to schools to stop bullies from harassing classmates online.

New Security Issues for Youth at Giddings State School. The Austin-American Statesman covers some of the highlights of a new report detailing gang-related security issues.

Los Angeles Students Meet to Discuss Bullying. LA Times covered a gathering of thousands of LAUSD students who met to watch and discuss the new documentary “Bully.” Special Education Law Blog wrote a post last week giving some statistics on how many students are affected by bulling, reviewing the new movie, and offering a unique perspective on bullying from the perspective of students with autism.

Another Child Dies While Being Improperly Restrained. COPAA covers the story. Read our post to see how you can help pass federal legislation to stop unnecessary deaths.

Microboards have gained momentum recently as a legal option that can put individuals with disabilities and their families and friends back in control.

The idea is a simple one: have the family and friends of a person with an intellectual or developmental disability retain control of the most important decisions affecting their loved one’s life goals. Microboards were first developed in Canada in the 1980s by David and Faye Wetherow. Today, the Pennsylvania Microboard Association states that more than 400 U.S.-based microboards exist in 20 states. The Texas Microboard Collaboration, a project of The Arc of Texas, defines a microboard as “a small group of committed family and friends who join together with an individual with a disability to create a non-profit organization.” Microboards are governed by a board of directors, which includes 5 to 7 family members and friends that have an interest in the wellbeing of the individual with special needs.

The board of directors of the microboard creates a “PATH,” or Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope. The path is like the mission statement of the microboard. It is person-centered and sets out a positive, goal-focused vision for the the microboard’s beneficiary.

Once the individual’s PATH is established, a microboard can be operated in one of two ways. The Arc of Texas provides an excellent summary of each option:

• Natural Support. The Microboard can use readily available “natural” supports and resources by finding people willing to help in a systematic way and using generic community resources (i.e. housing program funding, grants from local banks, volunteer services, etc.). The corporate structure of the microboard ensures sustainability of the support network. It gives families peace of mind that something legal and concrete is in place with people who know and care for the individual.
• Provider. If an individual receives Medicaid Waiver Program funding from the state, his or her microboard can apply to be a provider of Home and Community Services (HCS) or Texas Home Living (TxHmL) for the person. The microboard would manage all aspects of the individual’s care and hire staff who would be paid by the microboard with waiver program funding.

The first operating option–natural support–is fairly straightforward. A nonprofit entity can still be created, but is not as critical as in the second option. The “provider” option gives family and friends better control over the finances that pay for services for the individual with special needs. The microboard can build a build account for the benefit of the individual. With this money, the microboard can purchase necessities like home appliances and staff transportation to bring the individual to appointments. The microboard can also rent office space in the home of the individual. This transaction provides additional discretionary income for the individual and can be a critical component in funding services outlined in the individual’s PATH. Finally, one of the most important facets of the “provider” option is that the microboard can directly hire home living or direct-care workers. The microboard can also serve as the provider organization and receive Medicaid Waiver Program funding to pay staff.

Microboards are still a rare find, but they are growing in popularity because of the control they can return to families of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Many families are likely intimidated by the prospect of creating a nonprofit organization or establishing a trust. Putting together a “board of directors” sounds like a difficult undertaking. However, many families have found that the time and motivation invested in establishing a microboard has led to a satisfying result. Plus, a number of organizations around the country are providing free or discounted consulting services to get families started.

For more information on microboards, check out Texas Microboard Collaboration FAQs and a brochure on microboards written by The Arc of Texas. To get help with a microboard, you will likely find some great resources from your state’s chapter of The Arc of the United States.

Step into most public school classrooms today and the prevalence and value of technology as an educational tool is undeniable. Even urban schools districts, many strapped for cash as a result of the economic downturn, are improving technology available to students. With companies like Apple reducing tablet prices and rolling out new digital textbook programs, school districts can actually save money by going digital (not to mention save the backs of students toting heavy textbooks from class to class).

A recent study from the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) showed that 87% of all 12 to 17 year olds use the Internet regularly. So the increasing ubiquitousness of classroom technology makes sense. Schools are just trying to keep up with the times. And it doesn’t hurt when technology makes financial sense, keeps kids engaged, and prepares students for a future when technological expertise will be required.

However, the most fascinating change technology has brought to the world of education hasn’t been its impact inside the classroom, but its role in redefining what a classroom is. Today, students don’t need to be in a traditional brick-and-mortar school to learn, speak to a teacher, receive credits, and graduate. Learning can happen anywhere there is an Internet connection.

What are Virtual Schools?

Virtual or “online” schools have emerged as an increasingly popular alternative to the traditional school model. Virtual schools have a number of benefits, offering scheduling flexibility, content differentiation, individualized pacing, and accessibility to a diverse cross-section of students.

In general, virtual schools allow students to take classes online that they would traditionally take in a physical classroom. Classes in reputable, established virtual schools are surprisingly structured and tailored to provide individual attention to students when they need it. There is a real life teacher leading the class, students get real feedback on assignments, and students can get questions answered by email.

CNN had a story several months ago that provides a decent overview of virtual schools and the benefits they provide. What the story left out is that virtual schools don’t need to be an all-or-nothing alternative to the traditional school model. Students and schools can supplement traditional classes with classes through an online virtual school.

iNACOL published a report that provided some great statistics about the growth of virtual schools:

Benefits of Virtual Schools

Flexibility. Virtual schools offer a number of benefits for school districts, students, and families. The first benefit is that a virtual school curriculum can be accessed anywhere and at anytime. Students and parents have taken advantage of online class flexibility in a variety of ways. A student may look to virtual school classes to supplement his or her traditional school’s curriculum. A student can take a remedial online class to improve his or her skills in a particular subject, or a student can take an online class when his or her parents and teachers feel traditional classes are not challenging enough. Some students have even looked to virtual schools when their traditional school does not offer a particular class they wish to take. Want to learn the native language of your ancestors? A virtual school may be your best option. For this reason, many schools districts allow students to enroll in a virtual school class and work on assignments at school during their traditional school day.

Some families have moved their children into 100% virtual schooling. The student would, if they choose, take classes from the comfort of their home. Many new-age “home-schoolers” have joined with other virtual school families to arrange field trips and opportunities for their students to socialize.

In addition, virtual schools typically offer a great deal of flexibility in when lectures can be viewed and when assignments are due. Online classes allow students to complete assignments at their own pace. Students can sleep in until noon and work on classes until 8 PM. As long as they are getting assignments done, students can structure their own schedules.

Personalized, differentiated content. As mentioned above, virtual schools often offer a more personalized, tailored curriculum than is possible in traditional schools. Through the magic of technology, many virtual school platforms can also focus instruction on concepts that students have not yet mastered. Students of varying ability levels also benefit from differentiated lessons and individualized pacing.

Reduces costs. For school districts strapped for cash, utilizing virtual schools to expand class offerings makes sense. Districts can offer classes that would typically not draw enough interest from the student body to make hiring a full-time teacher worthwhile. If a district chooses the right virtual school provider, schools can offer a virtually limitless assortment of classes with limited cost.

Expands access to high quality education. This post has previously discussed the benefits that virtual schools provide for students seeking a wider variety of class options. Virtual schools may also be a good alternative for low-income students seeking a better education.

The Department of Education (DOE) has published a white paper explaining how virtual schools can provide a favorable alternative to underperforming traditional public schools. The white paper explains that since passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, “local school districts are required to provide children enrolled in low-performing Title I schools—identified as not making ‘adequate yearly progress (AYP)’ for two or more consecutive years—the opportunity to attend an adequately performing public school while the original school is undergoing improvement.”

Virtual schools may fit the bill for districts that must provide an alternative school venue for students in low-performing schools. If a school implemented a virtual school alternative for underachieving schools’ students, those students wouldn’t necessarily need to have a computer at home. Instead, existing school district facilities could be outfitted to create an on-campus virtual school. If districts chose, students would still physically go to school everyday. The major difference from a traditional school would be that the actual teaching would be facilitated by off-campus instructors leading lessons on the students’ computer screens.

DOE listed the potential benefits of a virtual school option for underachieving schools: Enhanced communication among students and between students and teachers, accommodation of different learning styles, unlimited and flexible access to curriculum and instruction, frequent assessment, and increasing the supply of teachers.

Wrap-up

Of course, the benefits listed above are not exhaustive. And there are likely some drawbacks that are not discussed in this post. Overall, virtual schools have provided a new option for students and families when traditional schools cannot accommodate a child’s educational needs.

If you’re looking for more information on virtual schools, visit iNACOL’s website. If you’re in Texas, the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN) is the state clearinghouse for all online courses approved by the Texas Education Agency. They have a wealth of information, including an overview video of how virtual schooling in Texas works.

The focus on what is wrong with our educational system is not completely misguided. Numerous studies and interviews with business leaders have indicated that the U.S. economy is being held back by its failure to educate a generation of students to their full potential. One recent study has even linked education with our nation’s security. However, the negative aspects of public education are only part of the story. Throughout the country, educational leaders have turned their unconventional ideas into action–and succeeded.

This month, I will post a series of posts focusing on achievements in public education. There’s enough out there about the negatives. Those stories won’t be hard to find with a quick Google search. Instead, I will focus on the unique ideas from unlikely leaders that are transforming public education.

Some topics that will be covered include:

• how  virtual or “online” schools are reducing costs and expanding accessibility to personalized, differentiated education,
• the unconventional methods used by David Domenici and James Forman, Jr. in their See Forever Schools to make education for kids in juvenile detention useful and worthwhile, and
• how Geoffrey Canada and Harlem Children’s Zone have successfully taken a holistic, cradle-to-college approach from a ninety-seven block area in New York to “promise neighborhoods” all throughout the country.

There will inevitably be some discussion of what’s going wrong in education today. Any discussion about education would be incomplete without it. However, each post will primarily focus on the positive, forward-looking, and assets-based thinking that has led to pockets of achievement in the unlikeliest places.

During the hourlong lunch event, Mr. Halpert discussed the challenges of opening a new PD’s office in the nation’s largest city without a public defender’s office. Before the office was opened, Houston was the only metropolitan area in the country without a PD’s office. Mr. Halpert also spoke about the office’s expected growth areas, as well as his vision for the juvenile section to be a resource for all Harris County attorneys defending juveniles.

Biography of Steven Halpert, J.D.

Steven Halpert joined the Harris County Public Defender’s Office in October 2011. Prior to joining the PD’s office, Mr. Halpert was a private practice criminal defense attorney for eight years. Prior to private practice, he was an Assistant District Attorney in Harris County from 2000 to 2003. Mr. Halpert has been the Treasurer of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association for the past four years, has served as Treasurer of the Houston Bar Association Criminal Law & Procedure Section, and is currently the chair of the Houston Bar Association Animal Law Section. He has been licensed to practice law in both Texas and Maryland since 2000. Steven Halpert received his J. D. from the University of Baltimore, graduating with Magna Cum Laude honors, in 1999. He graduated from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri in 1986 with a B.S. in Political Science.

The Development of the Harris County Public Defender’s Office

In August 2010, the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense awarded Harris County a $4.1 million grant to establish a Public Defender Pilot Program. The grant can be renewed for four years, at which point the burden to fund the PD’s office will shift to Harris County.

In November 2010, Alex Bunin was appointed Chief Public Defender by the Harris County Commissioner’s Court. He was tasked with establishing a new office in one of the nation’s largest cities. Today, the Harris County PD’s office represents indigent clients in misdemeanor, felony, and juvenile courts. The office has felony trial, mental health, appellate, and juvenile divisions. In addition, the office has added four to five investigators and several counselors.

The juvenile division is the newest section of the office, opening in December 2011. Today, there are eight assistant public defenders working in the division. Juvenile division attorneys can be appointed by the judges of the 313th, 314th, and 315th Juvenile State District Courts.

Wrap-up of the Event

Steven Halpert discussed some of the challenges and frustrations of establishing a new PD’s office. For example, the grant received to establish the PD’s office anticipated receiving PD appointments from all three juvenile courts. There is no requirement that juvenile judges must appoint attorneys from the PD’s office.Therefore, judges can continue to appoint private attorneys if they choose. However, one juvenile judge has chosen not to appoint attorneys from the PD’s office at all. Mr. Halpert explained that this judge has stated that he wishes his court to be a “control” group that will help demonstrate whether the PD’s office has been a worthwhile endeavor.

Because of judicial hesitancy to appoint public defenders, as well as other circumstances, Mr. Halpert expressed some frustration with the amount of appointments his office was receiving. He stated that the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense grant was preconditioned on the expectation that his office would receive one out of every four juvenile appointments in Harris County juvenile courts. To make up for the “control” group court that has chosen not to appoint PDs, Mr. Halpert would need to receive nearly 35% of appointments from the remaining two courts. According to Mr. Halpert, this is an unreasonably high number.

Steven Halpert envisions the juvenile division of the Harris County PD’s office to be an aid to the private bar. He wants to “shed the myth” that the PD’s office should be feared by private attorneys. The need for private attorneys will always be present because co-actors cannot both be represented by the same office or firm. The crimes that juveniles are accused of often occur with a co-actor. Therefore, even if one juvenile is appointed to represent a juvenile, a private attorney will always be necessary to represent the co-actor.

In addition, Mr. Halpert sees his office as playing an advocacy role in changing some of the rules and procedures that make it difficult for all juvenile defense attorneys to zealously represent their clients. He provided an example of working with other Texas public defender offices and the Harris County District Attorney’s office to make offense reports more readily available for defense attorneys.

One particularly bright spot in the discussion came toward the end of the lunch hour. Many attorneys guide their juvenile clients toward probation, with the hope that after the probation period their clients will be able to have the claims against them dismissed and their records sealed. Mr. Halpert cited a dismal statistic that 40-50% of all juveniles are back in court within six months on a probation violation. Mr. Halpert expressed his inclination to avoid probation pleas when a plausible defense was available.

The Harris County Public Defender’s Office was established to provide top-notch representation for the indigent, as well as raise the level of representation throughout the defense bar. Hopefully, the attorneys working in the new PD’s office won’t be stifled by the overwhelming caseloads and low payment rates that often burden private attorneys. As the juvenile division grows from infancy into an established office, attorneys and families across Harris County hope that the office will lead the way in providing the best quality representation that truly advocates for clients’ wishes.

Today, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued their opinion in In Re C.P. The decision voids as unconstitutional provisions of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act that impose automatic lifelong registration and community notification requirements on certain juvenile sex offenders who were tried within the juvenile court system.

To the extent that it imposes automatic, lifelong registration and notification requirements on juvenile sex offenders tried within the juvenile system, R.C. 2152.86 violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 9, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16.

Additional information can be found here. The slip opinion can be found here.