"School Law Blogs" via Scott McLeod in Google Reader

You Know You’ve Been a Parent of a Child with Special Needs Too Long When (Part I)…by Lori Miller Fox

Charles Fox — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:58:16 -0500

As freeing as summer can seem while you’re anxiously anticipating its arrival, once into its unstructured midst, a parent can grow weary. The seemingly endless days, followed by the typical sleep-deprived nights, even if interrupted by a smattering of day camp or summer school, can make three months feel like three years. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying we should all long for the stressful start of the school year; I’m merely granting permission to acknowledge the battle fatigue of the summer. So to all those parents who feel a little “fatigued,” I offer the following validation:

You refer to having X-rays of your child taken as “picture day.”

Your everyday dishes are Styrofoam.

Brushing someone else’s teeth doesn’t seem the least bit unusual.

You organize your silverware drawer by those items that can and can’t crush pills.

You consider Tylenol a dietary supplement.

Out of habit, you ask to see the list of ingredients in your Frappaccino to make sure it’s gluten-free.

Getting your child ready for school looks like you’re a part of the NASCAR Pit Crew, but without the funny uniform.

You only go to the grocery store when you run out of applesauce and pudding.

You won’t wear white before or after Labor Day because it stains.

Your child needs new shoes, you leave him at home, and bring his AFOs instead.

Starbucks is a place “where everybody knows your name.”

You buy a purse based on whether or not there’s a pouch for the Diastat.

You act totally “out of control and stressed to the max” in public, just so kindly passersby don’t come up to you and recite the line about “G-d not giving you more than you can handle blah, blah, blah…”

You choose what Mexican restaurant you’ll go to by whether or not they have a Mariachi Band…but everybody does that.

Someone asks “when is your child’s birthday,” you automatically follow it up with a list of current medications and brief medical history.

You fill out a job application and include “pill-crushing” under job skills.

You consider your child’s sleep study, a night away.

You list Ronald McDonald House as a last known address.

You measure your parental worth by whether or not you remembered to give the afternoon dose of Baclofen.

You secretly fantasize about running down seniors who don’t really need your handicapped parking space.

You start thinking, maybe if President Bush had had services…

Coverage of 4th Circuit Prayer Decision

Don Byrd — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:38:42 -0500

My post covering the decision of the 4th Circuit, upholding the right of the Fredericksburg, VA City Council to limit its opening prayers to nondenominational expressions, is here. Other news coverage is coming in: Associated Baptist Press' Rob Marus has...

Illinois Autism Insurance Bill Signed into Law

Charles Fox — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:25:34 -0500

Today the pending Illinois House bill 4125 was signed into law to provide additional speech services to children with autism.

Drumroll please

apaulson@nsba.org (BoardBuzz) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:00:58 -0500

BoardBuzz would like to give a round of applause to those who realize how important music and the arts are to our nation's students. Thanks to The New York Times, we were happy to learn about a summer camp hosted by the well-known Marching 100 marching band at Florida A&M University.

About 450 students from across the United States and around the world, many who receive scholarships to attend, have spent eight days learning songs, beats and formation styles from the revolutionary band. Days are long, the sun is hot, but these students don't stop playing, even as the insects buzz around them.

While many music programs across the country have been cut to add in double periods of NCLB's concentrated math and reading courses, these young instrumentalists have the opportunity to spend the week embracing their musical interests and talents. Each is expected to learn two routines and to perform with either a symphonic, chamber or jazz ensemble.

BoardBuzz might not have any musical talents to showcase, but we are proud of this opportunity that Florida A&M has provided and hopes that their stories and music will inspire more of our nation's kids to pick up an instrument!

It's good to be a teen!

apaulson@nsba.org (BoardBuzz) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:05:44 -0500

BoardBuzz came across this interesting article in USA Today about whether kids are better off today than their parents were at their age. The article is based on a report released this week by the Foundation for Child Development. The Foundation created the Child and Youth Well-Being Index (CWI) that tracks 28 key quality of life indicators of teenagers over the past 31 years.

BoardBuzz was happy to hear that:
• Overall teenagers are better off today than they were nearly 30 years ago.
• They are less likely to participate in risky behaviors like smoking, binge drinking, and using drugs.
• Teenage girls are much less likely to become pregnant.

However, BoardBuzz was dismayed to hear that:
• Teenagers today are more likely to live in poverty.
• They are almost three times more likely to be obese than just a generation ago.
• Teen pregnancies rates are starting to rise.

The report got BoardBuzz thinking about how such an index could apply to education. Unlike schools that are typically judged on one indicator—test scores—this report evaluates the quality of our children's lives using a variety of indicators like poverty rates, teen pregnancy rates, and drug and alcohol abuse to gain a broad picture of the quality of our children's lives. So BoardBuzz asked itself why aren't schools evaluated in such a fashion? Wouldn't our children be better off if their schools were evaluated not just on math and reading scores but along with other indicators of school success as well, such as whether they provide a safe learning environment, prepare students for college and the workforce, and prepare students to be good citizens.

Our own Center for Public Education provides a list of good indicators for successful schools in their Good Measures for Good Schools tool. There you can find 28 measures of school success and how they should be used and maybe, most important, how they shouldn't be used. BoardBuzz recommends you check it out so you can look beyond your schools' test scores to determine for yourself the true quality of your local schools.

Deadline for Public Comments About New Regs Approaching

Jim Gerl — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:58:36 -0500

The deadline is Monday, July 28, 2008. If you care about special education law you should review the new regulation changes proposed by OSEP. If you have any questions or concerns about the new regs you should file a comment.

The federal Department of Education published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (or NPRM) on May 13, 2008. These will become federal regulations unless the DOE is persuaded by public comments to make changes (or in the highly unlikely event that the Congress were to get involved). Federal regulations have the force and effect of law unless overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, under general principles of administrative law, the commentary surrounding the reasoning for the regs is also entitled to some deference. So these regs are a big deal.

The comments that I filed concerned proposed 34 CFR Section 300.512(a)(1). This section governs what lay advocates may do at a due process hearing. I asked for the specific reasons that OSEP is changing DOE's previous and long standing interpretation of the law. OSEP had since 1981 consistently taken the position that lay advocates may represent parents in due process hearings, including asking questions of witnesses, cross-examination, filing briefs, etc. The Department has now backed off that position. Instead, the proposed reg repeats the statute to the effect that a parent may be accompanied and advised by an advocate at hearing, but states that whether parents have the right to be represented by non-attorneys at due process hearings should be determined under state law. I also asked whether it was OSEP's view that a state Department of Education could permit lay advocates to represent parties at due process hearings by state regulation or procedural rule or whether, instead, the ability of an advocate to represent parties at due process hearings turns on state law concerning the unauthorized practice of law.

The new regs also relate to consent, monitoring and allocation. The consent regulations are being changed to permit parents whose child is already receiving special education and related services to revoke the consent. In this situation, the school district would no longer be able to invoke the procedural safeguards, e.g. mediation or due process hearings, to override the lack of consent. Proposed 34 CFR Sections 300.9 and 300.300.

The proposed regulations may be found at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2007-2/050907a.html

You can submit comments on the proposed regulations at the Federal Rulemaking Portal
http://www.regulations.gov/
Follow the instructions under "How to use this Site" and look for docket ID No. ED-2008-OSERS-005. Although the website has to transfer the comments to DOE, there is still some time if you want to submit comments electronically. Comment on!

Wantagh Teacher Accused of Second Fling with 16 Year Old Boy

Workplace Lawyer — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:53:20 -0500

See Teacher a Lust Cause: New fling with boy, NYP, 7/23/08, at 17

UFT Agrees to 28 Arbitrators on Section 3020-a Disciplinary Panel

Workplace Lawyer — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:51:28 -0500

Fourth Circuit Upholds City Council's Ban on Sectarian Prayer to Open Meetings

Don Byrd — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:39:51 -0500

The Fredericksburg, VA's City Council instituted a rule that opening prayers must be nondenominational in deference to the First Amendment's prohibition on government-sponsored religious preference. Ruling on a councilman's challenge, the Fourth Circuit determined that "because the prayers at issue here are government speech", the ban is constitutional, and does not violate the plaintiff's free speech or free exercise rights. The decision paves the way, some believe, for the Supreme Court to step into this controversial debate.

From p. 5

It is true that Turner and the other Council members take some personal responsibility for their Call to Order prayers. But given the focus of the prayers on government business at the opening of the
Council’s meetings, we agree with the District Court that the prayers at issue are government speech.

Turner has not cited a single case in which a legislative prayer was treated as individual or private speech. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has determined that more difficult cases than this one should be classified as government speech.

From pp. 6-7

We need not decide whether the Establishment Clause compelled the Council to adopt their legislative prayer policy, because the Establishment Clause does not absolutely dictate the form of legislative prayer. In Marsh, the legislature employed a single chaplain and printed the prayers he offered in prayerbooks at public expense. By contrast, the legislature in Simpson allowed a diverse group of church leaders from around the community to give prayers at open meetings. Both varieties of legislative prayer were found constitutional. The prayers in both cases shared a common characteristic: they recognized the rich religious heritage of our country in a fashion that was designed to include members of the community, rather than to proselytize.

The Council’s decision to provide only nonsectarian legislative prayers places it squarely within the range of conduct permitted by Marsh and Simpson. The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in
nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith.

From p. 7

Turner was not forced to offer a prayer that violated his deeply-held religious beliefs. Instead, he was given the chance to pray on behalf of the government. Turner was unwilling to do so in the manner that the government had proscribed, but remains free to pray on his own behalf, in nongovernmental endeavors, in the manner dictated by his conscience.

His First Amendment and Free Exercise rights have not been violated.

UFT Agrees to 28 Arbitrators on S

Workplace Lawyer — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:51:13 -0500

Court Upholds Fla. Law Requiring Parental Permission for Students to Opt Out of Pledge of Allegiance

Mark Walsh — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:53:46 -0500

A federal appeals court has upheld a Florida law that requires students to have parental permission to opt out of daily recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. "We conclude that the state’s interest in recognizing and protecting the rights of parents on some educational issues is sufficient to justify the restriction of some students’ freedom of speech," a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, said in Frazier v. Winn. An 11th grader in Palm Beach County, Fla., challenged the statute as unconstitutional on its face. A federal district court ruled for the student, but in its July 23 decision, the 11th Circuit court upheld the parental-permission requirement. The court said it saw Florida's law as a "parental-rights statute" that could be distinguished from the flag salute and Pledge-recitation requirement struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette . "Here, unlike in Barnette and in the cases cited by plaintiff, the refusal of students to participate in the Pledge—unless their parents consent—hinders their parents’ fundamental right to control their children’s upbringing," the court said. The court did strike down a provision of the Florida law that it interpreted as requiring all students to stand during the Pledge, even those who had their parents' consent not to join the recitation. "The 'standing at attention' provision should not be enforced," the court said. "But we conclude that this portion of the statute may be severed, leaving the statute otherwise enforceable."

Announcing the National Forum on Disability Issues, featuring the 2008 Presidential Candidates/Surrogates

Charles Fox — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:21:09 -0500

Here is the chance to finally have the candidates directly answer the questions that effect people with disabilities. Our issues generally are ignored or subsumed in other issues so now lets participate and have the candidate's flesh out their positions, at this decision-making time.

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), a national disability nonprofit, organized this event along with over 80 sponsoring national, state, and local disability organizations. The non-partisan forum commemorates the 18th anniversary of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and addresses the issues most important to the disability community in the current electoral cycle.

When: Saturday July 26, 2008 from 12:30pm-4:00pm Eastern Time

Where: This forum take place in Columbus, Ohio

Members of the public may attend in person or watch the forum via web cast.

Who: Presidential campaign candidates Senator John McCain will participate via satellite; Senator Tom Harkin will appear in person on Senator Obama's behalf as he is traveling outside the country. News anchor and journalist Judy Woodruff will select the questions and will moderate.

How to Register: For more information or to register for this event visit http://www.aapd.com/News/election/080423aapd.htm Registration is free and still open, but organizers urge those desiring to attend to register soon. Advance registration is required to view the web cast and ensures that your computer is able to properly stream the video.

Congressional Autism Caucus Blasts Savage Attack on Children with Autism

Charles Fox — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:07:38 -0500

Washington, D.C. – July 18, 2008 – U.S. Representatives Mike Doyle (PA-14), Chris Smith (NJ-4), today criticized syndicated talk show host Michael Savage for his recent comments disparaging families with autistic children and questioning cases of autism spectrum disorders as frauds.

“The medical evidence that autism is a real neurological condition is overwhelming and unequivocal,” Congressman Doyle said this morning. “That’s why it’s so disturbing that Michael Savage would make such an uninformed statement about autism as he did.”

“This gives us an opportunity to educate and inform the public that autism is the nation’s fastest growing developmental disability and is reaching epidemic proportions in the U.S. Now is a time for steadfast commitment to advance treatments and services for this growing disability,” said Rep. Chris Smith.

One out of every 150 children in the United States has an autism spectrum disorder. The range and severity of symptoms of autism vary from case to case, but symptoms often include difficulties in communicating and interacting with other individuals and exhibiting repetitive behaviors and intense interests in specific subjects. The care involved in treating these symptoms often requires hours of intensive therapy every week - regimens that are often inaccessible or unaffordable for many families. With early intervention and concentrated treatment, the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder can be mitigated, enabling individuals with autism and their families to participate fully in their communities.

“After years of inadequate funding, the advocacy of the congressional autism caucus and many non-profits has helped to realize more than a 5 fold jump in autism funding over the past 10 years. We need to continue with this momentum, and these unfortunate comments do nothing to help the lives of those suffering with this often debilitating disorder,” Rep. Chris Smith said.

“I understand that shock jocks get the big bucks for being as obnoxious and controversial as possible – but there’s no reason we have to stand idly by and let him boost his market share at the expense of families who are dealing with a heartbreaking and financially draining health issue,” Congressman Doyle said.

“Those of us who know more about autism than Michael Savage have a responsibility to call him out on this issue,” Congressman Doyle added. “If I were a radio station that broadcast his show or a company that sponsored it, I’d certainly reconsider my association with it, and if I were a parent of an autistic child, I’d certainly demand that.”

Court OKs Nondenominational Prayers at City Council Meetings

Mark Walsh — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:31:50 -0500

And that may have implications for prayers at school board meetings, in my view. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld a policy requiring that prayers delivered at the beginning of meetings of the Fredericksburg, Va., city council be nondenominational. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor served on the panel by designation, and she wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. "The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith," Justice O'Connor said in Turner v. City Council of Fredericksburg. "The council’s decision to open its legislative meetings with nondenominational prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause." The city council allowed only its own members to take turns delivering the prayers, not any outside ministers or community members. The prayer policy was challenged by a city council member who is also a Baptist minister and wished to close his prayers in the name of Jesus Christ. Justice O'Connor treated prayers at a city council meeting as akin to the legislative prayers upheld by the Supreme Court in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers. I know this case has potential significance for school boards because I have attended school board meetings across the nation that have included prayers, including those delivered by board members and those offered by guest clergy members or others from the community. The significant legal question is whether prayers at school board meetings are "legislative prayer" of the type upheld in Marsh and the city council case, or whether board meetings are more like school. If courts consider board meetings akin to a school event, that raises some of the First Amendment concerns about compelling students to hear prayers, as in the graduation prayers struck down in Lee v. Weisman. The high court has never specifically addressed the constitutionality of prayers at school board meetings. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, in Coles v. Cleveland Board of Education, held that school board meetings were more like school, because of the frequent presence of students and other factors, and that prayers at such sessions were an unconstitutional government establishment of religion. Meanwhile, in Tangipahoa Parish, La., a lawsuit challenging that school system's latest policy permitting local ministers to deliver school board prayers is being challenged in U.S. District Court. The ACLU of Louisiana has this press release and this amended complaint from February. The Alliance Defense Fund, which is helping defend the school system, has this press release and this document answering the suit. In an earlier version of the suit against the Tangipahoa Parish school board, which was eventually tossed out on an issue of legal standing, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, issued this 2006 opinion, that discusses at length some of the legal issues surrounding school board prayers. But I assume the current lawsuit will eventually get back to the 5th Circuit.

Tenth Circuit Rules Colorado Scholarships Must Include "Pervasively Sectarian" Schools

Don Byrd — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:40:08 -0500

Colorado Christian University filed suit, claiming the state is not even *allowed* to leave them out of the scholarship initiative on this basis. The state countered that the Supreme Court's decision in Locke v. Davey - which supported the state's right to refuse public scholarships for a major in devotional theology - does allow them to make such a determination. Today's ruling sides with Colorado Christian University, overturning the district court, and adding more ammunition to those who would argue that "pervasively sectarian" may no longer be a standard by which states are allowed to deny public funds.

From pp. 15-16 on how narrowly Locke must be read:

The precise bounds of the Locke holding, however, are far from clear. On the one hand, we are disinclined to think that Locke is confined to its facts. Presumably, there are other forms of state decisions not to fund religious instruction that would pass muster under the Free Exercise Clause beyond the clergy training involved in Locke. On the other hand, we cannot accept the state defendants’ argument that Locke subjects all “state decisions about funding religious education” to no more than “rational basis review."

From p. 17, on Locke's implicit support for funding of pervasively sectarian schools:

Indeed, the Court noted that the Washington scholarship program in Locke (in contrast to the Colorado program here) “permits students to attend pervasively religious schools, so long as they are accredited,” and even allows students to take “devotional theology courses” at state expense, so long as they are not pursuing a degree preparatory for the ministry.

The opinion thus suggests, even if it does not hold, that the State’s latitude to discriminate against religion is confined to certain “historic and substantial state interest[s],” and does not extend to the wholesale exclusion of religious institutions and their students from otherwise neutral and generally available government support.
From p. 18, on the issues in this case that distinguish it from Locke further:

[T]he Colorado exclusion, in addition to imposing a far greater burden on affected students, has two features that were not present in Locke and that offend longstanding constitutional principles: the Colorado exclusion expressly discriminates among religions, allowing aid to “sectarian” but not “pervasively sectarian” institutions, and it does so on the basis of criteria that entail intrusive governmental judgments regarding matters of religious belief and practice.
...
Locke involved neither discrimination among religions nor intrusive determinations regarding contested religious questions. The scholarship program at issue in Locke excluded all devotional theology majors equally—without regard to how “sectarian” state officials perceived them to be—and therefore did not discriminate among or within religions.

From p. 19, concluding discusison of Locke:

Although Locke precludes any sweeping argument that the State may never take the religious character of an activity into consideration when deciding whether to extend public funding, the decision does not imply that states are free to discriminate in funding against religious institutions however they wish, subject only to a rational basis test.

From p. 22-23, on Colorado's program

By giving scholarship money to students who attend sectarian—but not “pervasively” sectarian—universities,5 Colorado necessarily and explicitly discriminates among religious institutions, extending scholarships to students at some religious institutions, but not those deemed too thoroughly “sectarian” by governmental officials. The sole function and purpose of the challenged provisions of Colorado law, is to exclude some but not all religious institutions on the basis of the stated criteria. Employing those criteria, the state defendants have decided to allow students at Regis University, a Roman Catholic institution run by the Society of Jesus, and the University of Denver, a Methodist institution, to receive state scholarships, but not students at CCU or Naropa University, a Buddhist institution. This is discrimination “on the basis of religious views or religious status,” and is subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny.

From pp. 29-31, on state intrusion in determining eligibility for scholarships:

Even assuming that it might, in some circumstances, be permissible for states to pick and choose among eligible religious institutions, a second line of Supreme Court precedents precludes their doing so on the basis of intrusive judgments regarding contested questions of religious belief or practice. As stated by the Court in Mitchell v. Helms: “[T]he inquiry into the recipient’s religious views required by a focus on whether a school is pervasively sectarian is not only unnecessary but also offensive. It is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.”
...
The Colorado provisions challenged here are fraught with entanglement problems. The most potentially intrusive element of the Colorado statute is the criterion requiring Commission staff to decide whether any theology courses required by the university “tend to indoctrinate or proselytize.” To apply this criterion, the Commission demanded to see syllabi from theology courses at CCU. The record contains two syllabi for “Early Christian Literature,” a course studying “the New Testament as literature.” In these courses, the students are asked, for example, to give “big ideas” of all of the books of the New Testament, and “explain how the differences in the various gospels reflect the different theological concerns of the various writers.” The Commission concluded that the course failed the statutory criterion, although it did not explain why. All we know is that one official defined the term “indoctrinate” to mean “to try and convince, to try and convert, to try and get individuals to subscribe to a particular set—to whatever the subject is, in this case, a theological subject or religious subject,” and “proselytize” to mean “to evangelicize (sic), to do more than just educate but to advocate that an individual subscribe to a certain theological point or religious point.” To decide that these syllabi were likely “to convince” the students of religious truths, the Commission had to decide how religious beliefs are derived and to discern the boundary between religious faith and academic theological beliefs.

Such inquiries have long been condemned by the Supreme Court.
From p. 33, on the difficulty of determining "indoctrination":

The line drawn by the Colorado statute, between “indoctrination” and mere education, is highly subjective and susceptible to abuse. Educators impart information and perspectives to students because they regard them as true or valuable. Whether an outsider will deem their efforts to be “indoctrination” or mere “education” depends as much on the observer’s point of view as on any objective evaluation of the educational activity.

From pp. 40-41, on the state's argument that Locke allows such investigation:

The state defendants respond that all of these inquiries are justified by Locke v. Davey, because determining whether a theology program is “devotional” is just as intrusive as determining what a single “religion” is, whether classes “indoctrinate,” and what educational policies “reflect” a religion. This misses a crucial point in Locke: the Court explicitly pointed out that “[t]he institution, rather than the State, determines whether the student’s major is devotional.” This avoided the intrusiveness problem; the State made no contentious religious judgments, but simply deferred to the self-evaluation of the affected institutions. Unlike Washington, Colorado insists on second-guessing an institution’s characterization of its own religious nature. The Commission refused even to accept CCU’s assessment of what religions were entailed by its own statement of faith. We do not mean to say that states must allow universities to be the final judge of their own eligibility for state money—of course not. However, if the State wishes to choose among otherwise eligible institutions, it must employ neutral, objective criteria rather than criteria that involve the evaluation of contested religious questions and practices.

Heads up for when the phone rings

apaulson@nsba.org (BoardBuzz) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:11:44 -0500

Do you ever wonder what triggers that first complaining phone call? Sometimes “social networks” and other websites that promote grassroots actions get the ball rolling and you won’t ever know what started it.

A video on the Parents for Truth website shows this happening around sex education. The video has a teacher calling a parent about the content of an “abstinence-plus” curriculum that was introduced in her health class. In the phone conversation, the teacher says the curriculum “hardly mentions abstinence” and actually “encourages sexual activity.” The mother gets very concerned, as many parents might, because she was certain that the sex education program would “stress abstinence” and “give some information on contraception.”

How can school boards assess what triggers such a call? This might be a difficult task, but schools can at least take the pulse of their community to know what people want taught in the classrooms.

A national poll conducted by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University, which was released in January of 2004 found that only 7% of Americans say sex education should not be taught in schools. In addition, the poll revealed that, in most places, there is little debate about what kind of sex education should be taught. However, this does not mean that all Americans agree on what kind of sex education is best. National polls may actually reveal a belief towards sex education that is not aligned with what a local community thinks.

Additionally, it is important to keep school districts’ community stakeholders informed about their sex ed curriculum and allow them to have input.

To learn more about community involvement in school health issues, request a “Building Community Support for School Health Issues 101 Packet,” and/or contact NSBA’s School Health Programs staff at schoolhealth@nsba.org.

New Religious Discrimination Guidelines from EEOC

Don Byrd — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:23:40 -0500

The arm of the government that investigates employment discrimination claims has updated its guidance for religious diversity in the work place. Thanks to Religion Clause for directing me to this Business Week story with the news. Last year, there were...

Gettin' students sweatin' to the oldies

apaulson@nsba.org (BoardBuzz) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:26:17 -0500

BoardBuzz has talked about student fitness many times before. And now one of our old friends is taking student fitness to Washington, D.C. And that's great news, especially in light of recent reports about student physical activity declining with age.

Fitness guru Richard Simmons is going before Congress tomorrow to urge them to keep physical education at the forefront of education. USA Today and the Washington Post are both covering his crusade (here and here, respectively). And it turns out that Simmons is hosting a rally immediately following his appearance on the hill. The Post tells us,

That's right, Richard Simmons, who turned 60 this month and whose "Sweatin' to the Oldies" video is about to turn 20, is slated to testify Thursday before the House Education and Labor Committee about expanding physical education in public schools to combat childhood obesity.
And while he still has his loud helium balloon-like voice and big hair, unfortunately, Simmons is hinting he won't be wearing his signature short shorts and tank top at the hearing.

"When I stand in front of Congress to testify I will speak from my heart but I will look like and talk like a Congressman," Simmons told the Sleuth. "That's right," he added, "no dolphin shorts and tank top."

But keep hope alive. Maybe Simmons will be sporting short shorts and a tank top underneath his congressman costume, which surely he'll have to remove for the "pro-PE" rally he plans to lead immediately after the child obesity hearing.

Sounds like Richard's got a plan to get students out of their seats and in shape!

The Danger of Attending Conferences

Mike Tully — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:20:35 -0500

In Lamar County, Mississippi, a school attorney was apparently "inspired" by a conference he attended recently, and talked the school board into passing a ban on teacher-student communication on social networking sites. Here's the top of the article. Pay particular attention to the last line!

Teacher-student Web friendships restricted by Lamar school board

Brittany Brown • Hattieburg American • July 21, 2008

Teachers and students in Lamar County can't be Internet friends this year after the School Board revamped rules prohibiting them from being friends through online social networks.

And two other Pine Belt school districts are looking at similar policies.

The Lamar County School Board approved the staff policy against online communication and text messaging between teachers and students at its July 7 meeting.

Social networks on the Internet, such as MySpace and Facebook, allow people to create profiles including pictures and personal information with the option of adding friends who also have online profiles.

The casual rapport between students and teachers concerned the School Board, Superintendent Ben Burnett said.

"It's not to say teachers and students can't have a MySpace page; that's a First Amendment right," he said. "This just keeps them from communicating socially through those kinds of means."

Huh? Isn't "communicating socially" also a First Amendment right?

You can read entire article about this idiocy here.

Technology, education and assessment in a global society

apaulson@nsba.org (BoardBuzz) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:47:28 -0500

No child left behind -- easier said than done, right?

In a culture so focused on improving our education system, how do teachers, administrators, educators, and board members cater to the growing education needs of students while providing individualized assessment? Across the country, school districts are working hard to use their shrinking budgets (have we mentioned this before?) creatively and implement technology resources for professional development to cut costs but also results in the ability to reach more educators in more individualized ways. They are using technology to create and share lesson plans, enhance their curriculum offerings, and gain fresh perspectives. Teachers are taking education to new heights with student response systems that help teachers track student progress throughout the year and also affords the opportunity to cater more to the learning needs of each particular child.

Teachers and administrators face a flat world where education is no longer just arithmetic, U.S. History, and biology. We’ve become a society filled with expanding horizons, languages, histories, and a world that is becoming more homogenous demands more from the education system that supports an evolving world. So how do schools adapt to their new and expanding role in education? How can our education system prepare student for jobs that don’t yet exist? The answer lies in new approaches to education. This new approach, which is ever-evolving to keep up with the demands, what is often called 21st century education. 21st Century learning environments when planned for properly and executed with knowledge have positive impacts on education, school district budgets, and the environment.

Want to learn more? NSBA’s T+L Conference will shed light on 21st century education and the vital role that education leaders and decision makers play in the inception, planning, and execution of transforming education for tomorrow’s leaders.