Michigan's workforce is aging, so within 10 years, we will need a lot of highly skilled workers to take these jobs. This is a big opportunity for our state. Historically, Michigan has had a strong manufacturing economy. We are continuing with advanced manufacturing where we have an advantage over foreign countries. Here's a list of the predicted workforce needs:

STEM

Skilled trades (welders, tool and die fabricators, line workers, machinists, mechanical maintenance technicians, pipe fitters, designers, electricians, and mold makers), engineers (electrical, mechanical, electro-mechanical, manufacturing, chemical, robotics, software, metallurgy, and design), and IT specialists.

Non-STEM

Project managment, administrative services, digital marketing, and primary care physicians and registered nurses (in particular, speciality RNs).

Soft skills:

Adapatibility, ability to work in teams, critical thinking skills, passion, and problem-solving skills are crucial because workers need to constantly adapt to a changing workplace. 

Suggestions for educators: expose secondary education kids to potential job opportunities through information and internships, and help students identify job interests, so they pursue careers where jobs will be available. Apply business principles such as continuous improvement in the classroom.

Suggestions for parents: value the skilled trades as viable careers for their children. Consider apprenticeships. 

Other things we need to work on as a state: place-making so that Michigan remains attrative for young people (vibrant urban areas, capitalize on the great lakes), be positive about the state.

This conversation reminds me of the various, competing goals of education. David Labaree's work would classify this economic goal as social efficiency, the matching of talent with economic needs. This view of education, while always present, was prominent at the turn of the 20th century. This strong focus on the economy downplays the importance of the other goals of democratic equality (education for citizenship) and social mobility (education as a way to better an individual's life). In light of the fact that Governor Rick Snyder is a businessman, it is not surprising that his education agenda would be for a stronger connection between schools and the workforce.

I think this is a very interesting situation, and I will be watching it closely. Michigan has a long and proud tradition of being a union friendly state. This is evidence of our very painful transition to a Right-to-Work state.

Taylor's new agreement is drawing rapt scrutiny because it was just enacted, appears to comply with the requirement, and therefore allows parties to enter into extended agreements that circumvent the Right-to-Work law. Unions around the state have been asking and achieving similar agreements with their school districts in exchange for significant consessions.  Because Taylor is one of the first school districts enacting the new security provision, it is serving as the issue's lighting rod.

The lawsuit takes issue with the fact that the union security agreement is a separate collective bargaining agreement from the five-year agreement containing the teachers' wages, terms and conditions of employment, and working conditions. It alleges that Michigan law prevents one part of a labor agreement from extending beyond the others (Count I). It also contends that the agreement has insufficient consideration because it lists "labor peace and bargaining continuity" as the benefit (Count II). Finally, the lawsuit alleges that the union security agreement is in essence a policy that binds future school boards and this is impermissible under Michigan law (Count III).

Examining Michigan law on these points, I don't think the plaintiffs are likely to be successful on Count I because the provision they cite, M.C.L. 423.215b, prohibits wage or benefit increases after a collective bargaining agreement expires. It doesn't specifically address the issue of the continuation of a separate collective bargaining agreement for union security. I think their argument is that there can only be one agreement, not two like in Taylor, but it's a stretch to read that into the law's prohibitions.

Regarding Count II, for the consideration to be valid, there must be a mutual exchange of something of value.  The plaintiffs argue that this was already guaranteed during the five years of the other CBA, so it can't be used again for this agreement. In addition, the union can't guarantee bargaining continuity for 10 years, especially because Michigan law allows for another union to be elected as bargaining representative three years after a new agreement is enacted. There is no clear answer in Michigan law for this argument. I lean towards the defendants, though, because I think labor peace and bargainining continuity could be considered valuable consideration. I do think it could be problematic for the union security contract if another union was elected during its 10 year term.

Finally, to be successful on Count III, the plaintiffs will have to prove that the union security contract is really a legislative policy that binds subsequent school boards. I think this will be hard to establish.

We will be watching closely as this lithmus test for Right-to-Work and certain circumvention strategies unfolds in court.

http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2013/Taylor_Complaint.pdf

  According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, approximately 55 percent of today's charter schools are located in urban areas.  Moreover, charter school student populations represent a "huge market share" in cities cited in this particular study, including New Orleans and Washington, D.C.  From a legal perspective, Paul T. O'Neil, an education attorney and author of the Charter School Law Deskbook comments in the Education Week article "...most state laws exempt charter schools from district disciplinary policies, typically allowing them to devise their own standards, with authorizer approval."  Despite this relative autonomy, all public schools, including charter schools must provide students with minimum levels of procedural due process as well as follow federal guidelines regarding disciplining students with special needs and disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004).  

Disparities in student disciplinary rates between charter schools and regular public schools have caused some districts, including Newark, N.J. to require charter schools to adopt the district's language in its student disciplinary policies. Given the current growth in charter schools nationwide, it is interesting whether charter school discipline policies will align more closely to district-level policies or move away and develop their own student disciplinary standards and practices.  Since there are quite a few followers of the EdJurist blog with an expertise in charter schools, I welcome your thoughts and insights related to student discipline policies in today's charter schools.

On another note, it is great to be back blogging on the EdJurist after a LONG hiatus.  I look forward to contributing on a regular basis.  

h/t Jayson Richardson

However, the unusual part of this story comes from another lawsuit, Petrella v. Brownback, in which members of the suburban Kansas City Shawnee Mission school district have challenged the state’s cap on local taxes for education as unconstitutional under the federal constitution.  In essence, the plaintiffs desire to tax themselves at a higher rate than is permissible under state law.  According to the complaint, the cap “strips Plaintiffs and local citizens fo their fundamental freedom to use their own money to improve the public educaiton of their children.”  Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe is part of the plaintiffs’ legal team.  It is a fascinating legal theory on its own and, if successful, could undermine school finance schemes elsewhere, many of which rely upon similar caps or expenditure limits to ensure some measure of equity in school funding between property-rich and property-poor school districts.  The federal district court dismissed the case last year for lack of standing, but the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded in October for a determination on the constitutional questions.  

Interestingly (though not surprisingly), parties who support the Gannon case and the push for more overall funding have opposed the Petrella plaintiffs’ claim - indeed, this is true of the Gannons themselves.  In the Gannon case, they are the named plaintiffs pushing the state to increase its funding, but they have also intervened on the state’s behalf in Petrella, claiming that the effect of allowing local taxation above the cap would lead to inequitable educational opportunities within the state.  (Of course, while they are named parties, the Gannons are not the primary movers here - rather, a conglomeration of school districts, Schools for Fair Funding, and their lawyers appear to be leading the charge)

Both suits, however, have as their underlying premise the idea that the state is not doing enough to fund public education.  In Gannon, the plaintiffs are looking to the state to provide more money directly; in Petrella, the plaintiffs are simply asking for the liberty to provide the increased money themselves.

Stay tuned as these two cases develop.  Gannon is up on appeal, while Petrella is back to the district court on remand.   The outcomes will affect not only the future of school financing, but also the viability of attempts like Governor Brownback’s to shrink government and lower taxes in the face of constitutional mandates to provide for education.

If you restrict the fuel into an engine, you should not be surprised when the car seems to struggle and under perform.

Dr. Maas used that fact as a metaphor to explain what is occurring in a vast majority of school districts across the nation. As a result of the 2008 recession, state funding for public education has declined over the last four years. These cuts have come with a cost. Public school officials are being asked to do more to ensure that the organization provides the same services at a reduced expense. However, there are not more hours in the day and educational leaders put in additional effort and time to the point of overwhelming fatigue. Eventually these overworked educators will either say “no” to additional work, and the work will not get done, or they will burn out. Neither option is ideal.

The question that Dr. Maas wanted answered was how do educators effectively communicate the current plight of public education to state legislators? This question has generated a few thoughts in my mind that I would like to share here.

As the nation’s economy slowly recovers from the recession there is a danger that some elected officials will be hesitant to provide public education with the requisite dollars to return to pre-recession funding levels since public education has functioned sufficiently well on the reduced budget over the last four years. State legislatures must work to restore pre-recession funding levels for public education and such efforts should garner widespread popular support. So, once again, how do those who are committed to ensuring that all students receive access to an adequate educational experience inform policymakers on the needs of public education?

The overly simplistic answer focuses on helping the community understand the fiscal realities of the current budget. Programs and services could be cut due to budget constraints. The problem with cutting programs or services is that it goes contrary to the core beliefs of most educators – to do no harm to children. Educators constantly work to insulate children from the financial side of public education. But, when children and, by extension, parents do not feel the impact of budget cuts then public education loses its most powerful group of lobbyist.

I have worked with a chief financial officer who once purchased the most dilapidated portable classrooms he could find the summer before the school district was to approach its voters about a bond issue. He then had the portable classrooms placed in the most prominent location on campus. The net effect of these efforts was that parents were appalled at the conditions and overwhelmingly supported the ballot measure in November. I feel like the same thing must happen to help public education return to pre-recession funding levels. Parents must become aware of the cuts school districts have implemented and appreciate the burden these cuts have had on the system. Just like the engine with restricted fuel, if the funding issue continues to go unaddressed then public education will begin to sputter and under perform.

A coalition of advocates for public education, including parents, business owners, and city officials (to mention just a few), could prove the catalyst to help policymakers shift the discussion from constitutional obligation related to funding public education to moral imperative. Only when elected officials view funding public education in the latter light will all children realize the Brown ideal of equal access to education for all children.

Like many other states, Michigan law requires that meetings of public bodies be held at a public place and be open so that members of the public may attend.  If an open meeting is not held, the decisions made while closed can be invalidated if this has impaired the rights of the public.  According to the complaint, although the actual vote on the legislation took place after the capitol was reopened, many significant changes to the bills were made during the building closure that essentially transformed the legislation into a right-to-work law. The plaintiffs allege that their rights to participate in the governement by listening to the debate, lobbying legislators while it was ongoing, and to report out the facts of what was taking place were impaired.  The state police claim that the building was closed for structural safety concerns.  The plaintiffs question this claim because this was, from their vantage point, one of the most significant pieces of legislation addressed by the legislature in the past 50 years and the building had never been closed before.

Here's my initial impression of this lawsuit:

While the closing of the Capitol was unprecedented and a very bad idea unless there really were safety concerns, I think that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in this lawsuit because the actual vote took place after the building was reopened.  Michigan's law only invalidates decisions made while in closed session.  In addition, when interpreting this law, Michigan courts have looked for an intentional closing of a public meeting to cover up for misdeeds or to hide information about how public officials voted as proof of impairing the public's rights.  This situation appears to be about limiting public access to protest or talk about the law before it passed.  Moreover, even if plaintiffs could convince the courts that the votes should be invalidated, in the past Michigan courts have allowed public bodies to reenact votes that were not in compliance with the Open Meetings Act.  So, even if the vote was improper, public bodies have been allowed to re-hold the vote in a public forum and reach the same result.  

Despite my initial analysis, I am very concerned about the closing of the building during this legislative debate. Unless it really was for safety concerns, excluding hundreds of citizens who wanted to participate and observe the debate on important state legislation flies in the face of our democratic traditions.  Public bodies in other states have taken steps to keep their meetings open by moving locations to accommodate more people and/or televising the debate so many more individuals can watch it.  These changes were found to be consistent with open meeting act principles. Michigan did not take these steps in anticipation of a heated debate; instead it closed the capitol building.  It does have a government access tv channel that could have broadcast the legislative proceedings on December 6th.  I don't know if that actually occurred.

This issue promises to continue to be a contentious one in Michigan.  I'll keep you updated.

Here's a link to the complaint:

http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/RTWcomplaint.pdf

I am a hunter. I grew up with guns, I still enjoy shooting, and I personally own a shotgun for that purpose. My own child went deer hunting just two weeks ago and I was proud of him. Most of my family and friends are gunowners and hunters as well, so they are likely to disagree with what I am about to say. So be it. 

We need fewer guns. Because "too many children are dying."

That's the long and short of this. Too many children are dying. We must respond and there is only one reasonable path. We need fewer guns.

Guns beget guns beget guns and a society with more guns is not safer, it is more dangerous.  

Not only are children dying from random acts of insanity at schools like those in Connecticut, Colorado, Kentucky, Virginia, and just about everywhere else ... but too many kids are killing themselves as well. There is too much unnecessary death and the always present tool seems to be the gun. 

I work with schools. I am deeply saddened by what I have seen these last ten years. Now, armed police roam the halls between our classrooms. Children not only learn to read these days, they learn to live in environments constantly patrolled by gun barrels. They learn to live in fear. That should be embarassing to us as a country. Children are in the presence of guns more frequently in the United States than in any third world country. It is compulsory in the United States for kids to spend their days watched by guns. I am embarassed at that reality.  

Now, serious people all over the country talk of arming principals or teachers. We should be disgraced at the thought. Anyone that advocates for giving educators guns but won't consider limiting assault rifles has a serious detachment problem from sanity. 

Guns beget guns beget guns. There is no solution to more guns except for more guns. Someone did actually define that cycle as insanty, once. So, our current national policy toward guns and kids is definitionally insane.  

Our poor schools do not know how to respond, except only to join in and try to stay ahead in this vicious cycle. I work with school leaders. I know what a difficult position they are in. So difficult, in fact, that reasonable school leaders have even started purchasing their own assault rifles for their office, so that in a shootout they will not be outgunned, I suppose. Where does this end? Metal detectors, surveillance cameras, police controlling our school hallways ... we have already given up so much that we cannot get back and for what? The children keep dying. Some cry out liberty and freedom in this debate, but where is our children's liberty? We have deprived them of their liberty, even of their lives, in our disillusionment that owning an AK makes us free. 

I don't care whether guns kill people or people kill people or whatever nonsense cliche you want to throw around to avoid the painful truth. Dead kids lie in graves that should be playing in schoolyards. Far, far too many of them. 

"Too many children are dying." We need fewer guns. 

The US Supreme Court established the notion that not all students are equal when it handed down the Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton ruling in 1995. Part of the justification for allowing random urinalysis for interscholastic athletes recognized that these students had less expectation to privacy as a result of their participation in athletics. In the end, students who desired to use illicit drugs were not being denied access to an education, they were merely excluded from participation in interscholastic athletics.

My fear is that the concept of treating certain students different than other students, as a result of the choices they make, is being applied too broadly. I co-authored a paper that was presented at the Education Law Association’s 2009 conference and relates to the point I am trying to establish. The paper analyzed the actions of a Colorado charter school and its chartering school district toward a student who qualified for free lunch. The charter school lacked a sufficient kitchen to run a lunch program internally, so charter officials were required to contract with outside vendors to provide lunch services. One year the outside vendor informed the charter school that it would offer its lunches at both a regular price and a reduced price, for those who qualified, but not at the free rate. The one student attending this charter school who qualified for free lunch (that is another issue) was forced to chose to attend the charter school and receive a reduced lunch or attend the neighborhood traditional public school and receive a free lunch. In effect, the student was being denied access to a desired pedagogy due to his parents’ socioeconomic status. I think that sounds like discrimination…

The magnet school in Texas appears to be heading down a similar path related to the use of RFID. Students have an option – chose to use the RFID and attend the magnet school or refuse the RFID and obtain an education elsewhere. I see this either-or approach as dangerous and I fear it will result in denying students access to the magnet curriculum. I am not certain that students attending magnet schools are in the same boat as interscholastic athletes when it comes to a decreased expectation to privacy.

My final observation related to the use of RFID attempts to take the practice to the logical extreme. Let’s suppose the student refuse to comply with the RFID expectations and returns to the neighborhood school. What happens when the neighborhood school decides it, too, is losing money due to students missing classes during the school day and moves to implement the RFID practice? Will the student be forced to comply with the policy in order to remain in public education? Is that a desirable learning environment?

No public school, be it a charter or a magnet school, should ever be allowed to justify discrimination by arguing that if a student does not like the practice then he or she can go elsewhere to learn. Public schools are charged with serving all students and if some public schools are allowed to exclude certain students (by imposing RFID or counseling some students out) then the entire system is in jeopardy.

Student writing is again on the forefront after Sandy Hook. In San Francisco, Courtni Webb, a 17-year-old charter school student, was suspended for the content of a poem she wrote in which she stated that she understood why Adam Lanza did what he did. She offered a brief commentary on the state of society as she saw it writing, “I know why he pulled the trigger. Why are we oppressed by a dysfunctional community of haters and blamers?” Webb made no threats of violence in her poem nor did she turn the poem in for class credit - a teacher found the poem and turned it over to administrators. Webb likened herself to a young Stephen King and noted that she often writes about sadness and other emotional topics. The school maintains a zero tolerance approach to threats of violence and apparently felt the student writing was just that although Webb maintains she has no disciplinary record to indicate she is a potential threat.

Violence in student writing is nothing new, but the issues will be renewed after Sandy Hook. Removing the charter school issue from Webb's scenario, the implications are still there for public schools - how do we best allow students to be creative, thoughtful, and provocative writers while still maintaining school safety? I argue in favor of writing - only because as a former English teacher I know how important meaningful and personal writing can be to adolescents. But I also know the difficulty of handing over a piece of student writing to a principal and asking "What if???" There are no easy answers here but as legal scholars and educators we must be vigilant of the issues that arise quickly within one day and ready to respond swiftly in a defensible fashion.

Any suggestions?

The school argued that this is all harmless and that the chips were only used to locate students that are not in the classroom, but still in the school building (they said it cannot work outside the school building and would not be given to third parties). The district was convinced they were losing over a million dollars a year in state revenue because students were in hallways and not in classrooms. Further, as a magnet program, the student can return to their home school if she did not like the policy. 

A lively discussion already developed on twitter, but let's continue the conversation (with longer arguments) in the comments. I will put my thoughts in the comments also. 

So, pick a side. Are you okay with this policy and this ruling? 

H/T: This came from Jon Becker's twitter feed with the hashtag #SchoolLawWTF attached. Appropriate. 

You can also follow along with Jackie's twitter feed at @EdLawInsights

They have been blogging for a few months now and are producing some really informative posts, relevant to those beyond Illinois as well. It is certainly worth adding to your RSS reader. 

Thanks for putting out this information and keep up the great work! 

I went to this conference two years ago and it was quite enjoyable and the topics were extremely relevant to scholars studying anything impacted by education finance. It is in Indy so it should be driveable for many folks. 

I strive to keep channels of communication open between former students and myself, especially as they enter into formal leadership positions, since this conduit proves a valuable gauge of current legal issues. One student, currently in his first year as an administration – he was hired as a middle school principal, had questions surrounding his work with a struggling teacher. At the end of our conversation he mentioned, almost in passing, that he appreciated all that he learned in school law but nothing done in that course prepared him for the myriad of issues he has faced in the first few months as principal in the arena of family law.

I asked him to document these experiences and here is a brief synopsis of some of the challenges this first year principal has faced:

• There is a pending divorce between the parents of one student. The student is struggling with attendance issues, to the point that a judge has ordered her to return to school. Mother claims daughter is afraid of father and both parents request notification of any absences or early releases for the daughter.
• A student’s mother died a number of years ago in a car accident. Since that time the student has lived with his maternal grandparents. His biological father was completely absent so the custodians of this minor were only able to obtain temporary legal rights related to his care. The biological father has recently returned to the area. There is a pending custodial hearing, but the biological father took the student into his custody and transferred him to a different school.
• Two siblings are caught in the middle of grandparents fighting for custodial rights since the parents recently died. The attendance secretary is asked to testify in a custody hearing about the attendance patterns of the students when they stay with each set of grandparents.
• A mother and a stepmother, both of who have legal access to the educational information related to a student, have restraining orders against one another. The restraining orders dictate that the two are not to know the home address of the other person and, yet, the student lives with one of the two ladies.

I do not address family law issues directly when teaching school law, but perhaps I need to do so. However, at what expense? There is only so much time in a semester and school law is littered with essential topics. This conundrum is at the heart of Levine’s 2005 scathing commentary on the declining quality of educational leadership programs – do those engaged in preparing educational leaders structure programs that are financially viable (reduce the number of credits required for graduation and consolidate curricula) or create comprehensive educational experiences that genuinely empower graduates to become educational leaders? The answer for too many educational leadership programs is more along the lines of the former option.

I could justify my efforts in school law by stressing that a graduate of an educational leadership program qualifies for a principal license, which signifies nothing more than an entry-level skillset (Adams & Copland, 2007, p. 160). Clearly, the process of developing effective school leaders must be continued by school districts in the form of induction and mentoring programs. Perhaps the family law issues enumerated above are of a unique nature that any principal would seek direction from central office personnel. And yet, I am left wondering and I will definitely revisit the importance of family law issues the next time I teach school law.