1. Westlaw & Lexis. I have now lived a over a year without them and I can confidently say there is simply no replacement. They are not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. I've posted on free alternatives, and while those are developing rapidly, West and Lexis are doing more, more quickly, and with more detail because of their enormous capitalization and human resources. The free resources can't match that development process. At least not yet because there has been no organization toward shared goals. 
2. Just a few blogs. This blogging thing has been around quite a while, and while there is a substantial stable of education law blogs, it is by no means the plethora that I thought might develop. Instead, what I think we have seen are a few bloggers really develop substantial followings. Jim Gerl, for instance, at the Special Education Law Blog, has leveraged his blog into a 600 member facebook group, among other things. These blogs are filling the space that other potential blogs might develop into. Thus, I think we have moved past everyone coming to the table, to everyone sorting out to the few existing tables. 
3. Lots of Linking. While I think there will be few bloggers serving as permanent resources, I think there will lots more linking between independently produced news. Links to MSNBC articles, ACLU postings, cases, new videos, etc. will be shared mostly between randomly existing groups, with some coordination at professional association levels (see @ELAOffice and @legalclips). Again, professional associations provide some structural support, but most of this type of information sharing I see as being random and independent. The sources for this type of linking will be e-mails, twitter, facebook, maybe Ning's, etc. 
4. The Relegation of (Paper) Books. I don't see education law books, including texts, as surviving forever. I see them surviving, especially the texts, as long as there continues to be an overload of ed. leadership preparation entities without law specialists (i.e. the Alexanders are the law specialists and the teacher is just a facilitator). But, I don't see that educational regime as holding on forever. States are decertifying programs, forcing redesign, permitting district alternatives, allowing online courses, etc. At the same time, the Internet permits the existing specialists to have a further reach. Thus, the forces are working against the traditional textbook model everyday, and everyday textbooks in education law lose a little ground. They have already lost ground to me. I don't require a textbook in most of my education law courses at the moment, and in a couple years I will probably do away with the textbook altogether. There may still be a place for online texts (think Rapp's Education Law currently on Lexis going public) and I think paper resources will never totally disappear, but the profit margins for paper education law books is shrinking and at some point most of them just won't be financially feasible. 
5. The Proliferation of Journals. Counter-intuitively perhaps, I see journals as expanding in their role. But, that probably doesn't apply to the existing journals, unless they engage in some radical changes. In some ways, there will likely be a merger between blogging and journals. This may seem an unsubstantiated statement, and that's because it is at the moment. As of now, we have not seen any new online journals in education law survive. But, just because the surface is calm, doesn't mean there is not vast movement below the surface. It is just far too easy for a group of ed. law interested folks to start a journal to think that it won't happen. Not only will it probably happen, but I imagine it will happen in a big way. Law schools will support some of these outlets, but most will probably exist independently geared more for the educational audience. Not all will be indexed by West, but all will be indexed by Google - which is just as useful, if not more so. This really could happen immediately, the start-up costs are that low, and I wouldn't be surprised if I heard about a new journal starting tomorrow. This is just waiting on organization of like-minded individuals. 
6. Governmental Contributors. I think you are going to start seeing a whole lot more sites like this one in Missouri. There is simply too much educational law and too few educational law professors and practitioners to disseminate it. So, the producers of the educational law themselves will probably start doing a better job of disseminating their own information. Not only have judicial circuits started putting out their own cases and state legislatures started putting out their own statutes, but increasingly they are also offering summaries, better searching, indexing, linking, and lots of other features that makes the information dump actually useful. I would also expect movement from the federal department of education in this direction soon.   
7. Professional Associations and Other Entities. Filling in the governmental gaps will be professional associations. NSBA already does an outstanding job (actually, I have learned that Tom Burns is really doing most of the exceptional work) and ELA is beginning to wake up to this online world (interested to see just how much they want to play). But, that won't be the end of it. Already NASSP has shown it wants to play (and I helped). And I expect lots more involvement from bar associations, advocacy groups, policy centers, and more. To stay relevant in the information economy, you need to be putting out information. So, more and more entities are likely to jump into the fray, with varying levels of quality and substance.  

And, so in sum I see more information distributed more widely. Instead of compiling all of educational law into a single 600 page textbook, the independent and distributed educational law information sources will slowly take their place - which offer much richer information on any given topic. Already if you search Google for "student expression rights" you get a whole page of useful links each of which has slightly different takes from slightly different sources - and, heck, my paper on student expression comes up on the second page and full text is available. 

But, my article coming up on the second page or my involvement with NASSP is an important indicator. The media of educational law information is likely to substantially change, but the sources of educational law information are likely to change much more slowly. The experts are still going to be the experts for a while. And, while new people may jump on and try to become experts, the simpler and cheaper way to generate information is still to let the existing experts write it (or record it as the case may be). Few people may read Mark Walsh's education law stories in the paper version of Ed. Week in the future, but few self-respecting legal experts miss his blog posts. Mark Walsh hasn't changed, just the medium. In the same way, professors are still going to be major content providers, although the medium in which they are publishing is likely to change. And that will be both good and bad. You might be able to talk to a professor in a different state or country on twitter, but that professor may spend more time tweeting 140 character entries instead of 30,000 word essays. Or, for instance, the online journal articles may be smaller and more to the point (if one person does a good lit. review, why not just link to it and save the trouble). So, there will definitely be some substantive changes as the medium changes, but the basic content points are unlikely to change all that much.

So, I think that's the future of educational law information that we are looking at. More choices in increasingly different media published by an increasing lot of publishers, but a whole lot of the same old players and much of the same content categories.       

The video of my presentation:

Videos embedded in my presentation:

Learning to Change, Changing to Learn

K-20 Center

Sources:

Most of my sources are embedded on this page.

But, for this version I also relied heavily on:

Read/Write Government - Lessig

Michael Wesch and the Future of Education

And, Scott McLeod's Oklahoma Presentation (to K20 there - it all comes full circle).

In their latest education report card, what they deem a report card on educational effectiveness, they have 9 different subjects on which they are reporting. One of those subjects that the states are graded on is "21st Century Teaching Force." I figured that would be a bit difficult to measure, so I checked out their methodology in determining whether a state is preparing 21st Century Teachers. 

It turns out, they have 4 factors. If you have all 4, you get an A, 3 a B, and so on. And what are these outstanding factors that determine whether a state is creating a 21st century teaching force ... testing and alternative certification. Here they are: 

1. Teachers must pass basic skills test. 
2. Teachers must pass subject knowledge test. 
3. State has alternative cert. program. 
4. State tests alternative cert. teachers. 

Maybe I am missing something, but what in the heck does that have to do with preparing 21st Century Teachers? Seriously. If someone knows, please tell me. 

Tell you what, though, they have a really fancy chart. It's cool even. The take-away here is not that the U.S. Chamber is doing great research ... they are not. Mostly, they seem to be borrowing off other people's research even. The point is that they know how to present research. And, if it looks cool people tend not to play with the details. 

Second, the court prospectively instructed the trial court on remand to apply the "rational basis" standard of review to its evaluation of the merits of the constitutional claim.  That is, on remand, the court is to evaluate whether the challenged legislation is rationally related to the legislative objective (or duty) of establishing and maintaining a "thorough and efficient" education system.  This is the first time I have seen this standard applied to the initial merits decision in an adequacy case, and it seems like a very easy standard for the state to meet, but I've learned not to assume anything in adequacy-land. 

Third, the court cryptically predicted that, if a violation of the state constitution were to be found on remand, the proper remedial posture for the court to take would be that of remedial abstention.  Essentially, the court explained that it could find a violation, but not direct the legislature to remedy the violation in any specific way.  Instead, the court held that the trial court "must provide the legislature with an appropriate period of time to change the funding system so as to bring the system in compliance with the Colorado Constitution."  Of course, the immediate concern that leaps to mind here is whether any legislative response to a judicial order specifically holding the system unconstitutional (other than a legislative action reducing funding) could ever be held to be irrational or unrelated to the constitutional standard at the remedial stage.  I'm curious as to what sort of remedy the court thinks that this approach will really yield. 

Three of the seven justices dissented together, arguing that the adequacy of education spending is a nonjusticiable political question, agreeing with the minority of states to have considered the issue.  Most surprising to me was the lack of any discussion whatsoever of individual rights to education, even to reject any such notion.  As we watch this case on remand, it will be interesting to see whether justiciability with a highly deferential standard of review and no propect of an injunctive remedy is any better than non jusiticiability, from the plaintiffs' perspective.  Taking the case all the way back up may not be smart (particularly financially), where the state supreme court has already telegraphed a very difficult road to victory and no remedy beyond a declaration in the event of such an unlikely victory.   

First, more stupid zero-tolerance fallout. A girl brought empty gun shells to show science teacher ... and suspended. This is not as bad as some others, but these kind of stories continue weekly these days. At some point the embarrassment factor must kick in. h/t S.M.

Great report from Fordham law on state data system privacy elements and the Washington Post coverage (EdWeek too). I can't disagree with the authors legally, but I do think their natural inclination to protect, protect, protect is the wrong inclination and is going to slow down important research that could improve schools. The solution here is just to let public universities store the data warehouses. We are public institutions within the public trust, but it connects data and researchers more closely. I would like to see more universities getting into this business. 

Bryan Jason Ford (@BryanJasonFord) on the implications of the Supreme Court's denial of cert. in Stancourt v. Worthington City Sch. Dist.. This is pretty good if you are a special ed. person or interested in the Supreme Court approval process. 

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

So, you should know that I borrowed Lawrence Lessig's presentation style, lots of Michael Wesch's data, and Scott McLeod's ideas, amongst others, ... and combined them into this presentation. Also, this is the handout that I gave out in the session on how I use YouTube, wikis, podcasts and blogs in my own teaching. Also, this is the Center for which I am an associate director.

My sources are embedded in this page.

This video is available at blip, and vimeo.

Plus, as a bonus, here are a few more law oriented jobs on the market so far this year (it is sort of a hot speciality this year - I think that is a good thing for law scholars on the market):

Wayne State - The sometimes forgotten 30,000 student university in Michigan.

George Washington University - This is a higher ed. and very good position. GW is doing a lot of cool stuff, especially online, plus you have access to the power players in Washington.

Plymouth State - Looking for someone in special education law. I hear New Hampshire is beautiful.

University of Toledo - Ohio is a hotbed for educational law profs - and Toledo looks to be joining the group.

Quinnipiac Law School - They would consider a candidate with expertise in special education law.

Southern Connecticut State - I would image there would be plenty of resources there.

Southern Illinois - Edwardsville - This is an urban campus just outside Saint Louis (and where I got my bachelors).

As, always, I'll be putting these on the job board.

1. Everyone seemed to enjoy Louisville. I think it held up quite well for a conference city. I was a little surprised, but happily so. 
2. The General Sessions lacked a little umph this year. Most years I enjoy the generals more than the breakouts at ELA, but this year the opposite was true. Charles Rose was a big name, but dry speaker. Kevin Brady is the conference chair next year, so I'll be sure to send him some names - and you can too if you are an ELA attendee. He should bring some fresh ideas.
3. The breakouts were pretty good this year. I enjoyed several of them and learned a good deal. I do still hold the position that this one was the best session I attended. 
4. I got a wealth of new responsibilities this year. I am the new Chair of the Technology Committee for ELA. Not really sure what that means outside of planning a few webinars, but I'm looking forward to seeing how ELA can expand. I look forward to working with David Doty (@canyonsdave) on these issues. David is also in line to be President of ELA in a couple years, so congratulations (there is not a better person to integrate some tech. in the organization than him - he is a very impressive fellow).
5. Cate Smith, the new executive director, did well in her first conference. I think everyone has a quiet confidence in her. ELA's staff, though, Jody and Judy, were perhaps even more impressive as a lot of planning for this event probably fell to them during the transition. 
6. There were a LOT of students there this year. I was so pleased to see that. It really speaks well for ELA's future. We need to find a way to continue to encourage student participation. Maybe reserving a few additional sessions for students to present or bringing back some student only oriented activities. Anyway, encouraging signs.
7. I'm looking forward to the leadership of Brad Colwell. Brad and I go way back, and he is more than a competent leader. We chatted a little and he even entertained the idea of making the School Law Reporter public. That's the kind of outside the box thinking that will take ELA to new places. Plus, a little SIU representing ... and that always pleases me.
8. Vancouver next year. That could be painful for the organization, but at least it will be beautiful.

In sum, I am excited about the future of ELA. There have been times in the past few years when I questioned whether ELA could reinvent itself for the next generation, but I think the changes of the past year and the events of this conference have answered a lot of those questions for me. Now, though, the challenge is to move past the potential of new leadership toward real, lasting changes. It is not going to be easy, but it can be done and I think there are a core group of people interested in pursuing that objective.

But, like them, I came. I didn't know anyone (but my professor or two) and for the most part I sat quietly in rooms in the corner hoping that no one would really notice me or that I was not getting in any of these "more important" people's way. I did it. I been there. I've sat in my hotel room (not the conference hotel but some cheap Days Inn down the street) some nights with pizza and the TV instead of going out with all the "cooler" people. I watched conversations happen from a distance wondering if anyone would bother to include me. It's frustrating. It's embarrassing. It's humbling. I could think of about a million other things I would rather do than attend an academic conference as a student.

But, students, you are learning and that learning cannot be replaced in any other fashion. It's one thing to know the name Martha McCarthy or Kern Alexander or Charlie Russo or so many others. You can even see their pictures, right? You can read their papers. But, you can't get a sense of the person until you see them. Not just when they are presenting. But, watch them interact in the hallways. Or chair a session. Or at a different table in the restaurant. Their lives were and are no different than yours. You are on that same trajectory - you just haven't had the time to let the line rise from the axis. And, sure, they are doing more important things than you right now, but it's the "right now" clause in that sentence that really matters, not the "important things" clause.

In the academic world, everyone lives in small communities. I don't care if you are Diane Ravitch, every academic lives in a small world. On the entire planet, there are certainly less than 500 people teaching educational law as a career. And, 500 is not that many, especially because there are only about 200 that are really active members of the community at any given time. And, the really crazy thing, the thing I think it takes some students a while to realize, is that we really, really, really care about that community. Think about it. I'm devoting the best years of my working life to educational law. If you don't think I care about that at a deep, fundamental level, your missing the boat. If you have something to offer that community, even a little thing, I will bend over backwards to help you help us.

So, students, as you are sitting the corner of the presentation rooms don't think I didn't notice you. I did. You being at this conference tells me that you have something to offer. And, sure, I probably didn't read your name tag. I might not know your name yet. But, I saw you. I saw your face. I saw you learning. I saw you caring about this community. I thought to myself that person might have something to offer. And, next year, when I see you again, I am going to remember that I saw you last year. I'll wonder to myself which university your at. What your studying. But, our paths may or may not cross. I still may not know your name, but now I am in interested in you. I'm curious what you have to offer. I may ask a friend about you. And, next year (these things take time so you must be persistent), I'm going to make it a point to introduce myself. Ask if you are finishing up or what your dissertation topic is. You have shown me on multiple occasions that you care about this community - and, now, I want to make you part of it as quickly as possible. We'll help you find jobs. We'll help you get pubs. We'll take you out with us to have drinks at the bar - and, now, you'll have a network connected to the broader network, which is connected to the broader community, which is making an impact in changing our world for the better.

That's how it works. You need to be bold, but more importantly you need to be persistent. Inclusion in the network is earned through sustained humility and random flashes of brilliance. There is simply no substitute for networking of this capacity if you want to join the community. So, while you may be on your flight back wondering what it was worth, rest assured you were noticed and you were networked.  

But, that said, I am not walking out excited about the federal government's role in education. Rose almost seemed content to keep the status quo and let innovation happen outside the DOE framework with some support through grants and whatnot. Now, constitutionally, you could argue that is the right position for the federal government. But, right now they are sitting on billions of dollars that could fundamentally alter the basic structure of our education system. But, that kind of change takes leadership and part of leadership is inspiration.

Now, you probably wouldn't think a bunch of lawyers really need inspiration, but, honestly, we need more inspiration than others because of our inherently conservative positions (protecting schools usually involves keeping the status quo). The Gen. Counsel of the DOE should be seen as one of our leaders. The potential power inherent in a room full of educational lawyers is enormous - but, Rose made little effort to tap into the large potential pool of resources and change.

Anyway, it was an informative presentation and I look forward to seeing what the US DOE can do with the current President, Secretary and Congress.  

But, a taste: 

1. She surveyed hundreds of superintendents nationally and had a good response rate. 
2. School leaders rely heavily on their lawyers for legal information, in addition to practitioner magazines and PD. They do not think much of their legal information comes from law courses. In fact, just getting information from the Internet rated higher. 
3. School leaders want positive relationships with their counsel and seem to be relying on them more. 

Anyway, she is doing some good work and I want to recognize it. 

Brady, Umpstead & Eckes presented on the legal issues that might arise from Cyber-Charters. They think there are about 100,000 students in cyber-charters right now in about 25 states with authorizing statutes. For the most part, they identified both a lack of research on these "schools" and a lack of guiding statutes and regulations - but tried to use the existing legal structure to outline what they think should be the legal boundaries. This is an article well worth reading when it comes out. 

Belinda Cambre took a more local view of cyber-charters in New Orleans as they responded to Hurricane Katrina. They are expanding greatly and have 3 more applications under consideration in Louisiana right now. But Belinda too noted the lack of oversight and the lack of clarity regarding how such schools must operate. Synchronous for asynchronous requirements, for instance, are not clarified at all. Nor are how such schools supposed to interact with existing brick and mortar schools and/or homeschooling. 

Bottom line here are that we are legally flying blind on regulation of these cyber-charters. It is sort of a perfect storm of lower regulatory rigor on charters and lack of understanding of virtual - resulting in almost no oversight. Belinda even cited a school in Maine that, for a fee, will read your transcript and grant a diploma that is accepted at many universities. Clearly, we have not considered that kind of interaction of schools in one state granting diplomas to students in another state without the student ever visiting Maine. 

The REALLY CRAZY thing here is that this kind of interaction between schools and students basically blows up the entire model of public education in the United States linked to boundaries. Money is generated by boundaries. Students are assigned to schools based on boundaries. Teachers are certified based on boundaries. But, these boundaries are not necessary anymore and, while tech. folks like Scott M. have been preaching the possibility of this, this cyber-charter concept is the first potentially truly boundary breaking implementation of this. So, the boundaries are falling, but the law has almost no legal structure built to compensate for this change. 

Anyway, before today these concepts to me were mostly abstract. Anyone that understands the Internet could conceptualize such possibilities, but such concepts were mostly left to imaginary implementation. No more. Cyber-charters are pushing ahead and filling the possible space because they are literally almost operating in a legal vacuum.

Just an outstanding presentation, and, I think, a good example of why organizations like ELA are so important. Young researchers like these can get the legal mechanism moving, hopefully soon, to assure that schools are in touch with our democratic structures as expressed in law. Schools simply left to pure market mechanisms are dangerously out of touch with the American system. We can democratically handle this transition in schooling, but we are going to need a whole lot more presentations like this one. Bravo.  

This is a very good sign and I was highly encouraged. While they articulated that they could not mandate classes that College of Education must offer, they would certainly highly support such an offering. Now, Colleges of Education move very slowly, but if Standards Boards are willing to openly express support for a ethical and legal component in pre-service, then I think Colleges of Education will slowly but surely respond. 

So, the task before us is to consolidate this open support for such a component by having these Professional Standards Board personnel publish this desire as openly and widely as possible.