Archive for December, 2009

Economic Crisis: Education’s Challenge, or Opportunity?

December 23rd, 2009

Collaboratively authored by Chad Ratliff and Pam Moran; originally posted on Customized Leadership.

Schools of our past are over. The biggest survival challenge facing educators right now is not Economic Storm ’09. It’s designing contemporary learning spaces for today’s learners. We understand our young people will be members of a national workforce competing in a global economy. They also need the skill-sets to be leaders and members of a global community. The needs of contemporary learners demand more from the education sector than ever before.

We educators know well that the human drive to learn and participate in a community runs deep. Over time, in villages and towns across the globe, this drive morphed into the place we know today as school. Tinkering around with schedules, room arrangements, new strategies, and different learning resources has become second nature for educators. Few of us have imagined schools being downsized, privatized, outsourced, or virtualized as has occurred within many companies in Corporate America. But, fellow Americans who worked in the steel mills of Pittsburgh or provided tech support in Silicon Valley once believed in the security of their workplaces, too.

John Maeda writes, “Boundaries that separate disciplines appear to be solid lines but up close are really dashed, and ready to cross.” Whether across our classrooms or across sectors –we can no longer afford to see only solid lines. To do so puts our profession, our children, and our society at risk. Contemporary learners will need to solve increasingly complicated global problems crossing geopolitical boundaries: poverty, water shortages, conflicts, and global climate change—to only name a few. Inside our borders, the rapid shift from manufacturing toward a project-driven service economy is clear. Contemporary learners will need to work collaboratively and be able to think quickly, critically, and creatively. And, whether young people leave or choose to stay and take non-fungible jobs in our local communities, they depend on us to equip them for successful entry into the workforce or college, or both. We can’t wait for the federal and state governments to make this happen. This is our job. Right here. Right now.

We must do everything we can to accelerate learning. This means eliminating the distance between learners and learning –a distance traditionally defined by the ratio of 1 teacher to 25 students or so. Today, the distance between learners and learning can be dramatically reduced. Great technological tools in the hands of youth can shift the learning distance from 1 to 25 to 1 to 1—no learning downtime, no arbitrary time limits. Young people should not have to power down when they come to school or stop learning when they leave. Neither should we.

Technology coupled with great learning practices accelerates achievement. So, how can we embrace technology to accelerate our work with young people in contemporary learning spaces? We can take down filters and facilitate social learning networks to create global learning communities. We can put handhelds, netbooks, livescribe pens, smart phones and other technologies in the hands of students and educators. We can learn how to best use these tools together, inside and outside of the place we call school. Indulging any resistance to using technology as tools for learning and administrative work can no longer be an option. If we attempt to maintain the schools of our past in a contemporary learning world, we will likely consign our schools to a Darwinian future in which all who can abandon them will do so for a continuum of customized options that we educators appear loathe to offer. Schools as we know them could become as obsolete as steel mills.

So, how do we turn the Economic Storm ’09 into an opportunity rather than a challenge of epic proportion? We must use the resources we have available to support innovation zone work—teachers and students aligned in research and development; figuring out learning for our future. This means redirecting limited resources to fund innovation projects: setting up model learning spaces, creating design labs to tinker with new approaches to curricula, and encouraging educational entrepreneurs in both public and private sectors. We cannot be afraid to fail, we cannot be afraid to learn, and we cannot be afraid to change.

If we transform our schools so that the distance between learners and learning truly becomes 1 to 1, we’ll create a learning grid that powers a future for our young people which exceeds our wildest dreams. After all, isn’t that why we’re here? It’s important to consider that doing nothing is a choice. Maintaining the status quo is a choice. What choices will we make? What choice will you make?

Dr. Pamela Moran (@pammoran) is the Superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools and Chad Ratliff (@chadratliff) is the Assistant Director of Instruction and Innovation Projects.

2 comments »

Posted in Chad Ratliff, Innovation, Pam Moran

The Builder- Designing The Future of Educational Leadership

December 21st, 2009

If we are to create “tomorrow’s” educational organization and model, are the leaders of “yesterday’s” model the leaders we will need to build “tomorrow’s” model?

If education is to be transformed, should we not transform its leaders? If we are to create a new educational organization, then does it follow, we would need a new style of educational leader?

Current educational leaders are skilled at leading in yesterday’s model. Today’s educational leaders are attempting to fit the needs of “tomorrow” into the organization and model of “yesterday.” The educational organization has created leaders who are skilled at operating within that model. But as the model becomes outdated, misaligned with current needs, and in some cases broken, current leaders can only continue to adjust, repair, and re-align the old model the best they can. What they are not able to do is build a new organization. For, according to Umair Haque, author of a post on the Harvard Business Review blog entitled “The Builders’ Manifesto” it is not leaders that we need, but “builders.”

“What leaders ‘lead’ are yesterday’s organizations. But yesterday’s organizations… are broken.”

“Today’s biggest human challenge isn’t leading broken organizations slightly better. It’s building better organizations in the first place. It isn’t about leadership: it’s about “buildership”, or what I often refer to as Constructivism.

“Leadership is the art of becoming, well, a leader. Constructivism, in contrast, is the art of becoming a builder — of new institutions. Like artistic Constructivism rejected “art for art’s sake,” so economic Constructivism rejects leadership for the organization’s sake — instead of for society’s.”

Educational leaders are formed by the needs of the organization of the past. They were developed within a broken organization, to meet the leadership needs of a broken organization, and are skilled at leading a broken organization. But, if what is desired is to build a new organization, what will be needed are educational builders.

Umaik Haque contrasts the boss, the leader, and the builder in piece on

The Boss The Leader The Builder
drives group members coaches them learns from them
depends upon authority depends on good will depends on good
inspires fear inspires enthusiasm is inspired — by changing the world
says “I” says “we” says “all” — people, communities, and society
assigns the task leader sets the pace sees the outcome
says, “Get there on time.” gets there ahead of time makes sure “getting there” matters.
fixes the blame for the breakdown fixes the breakdown prevents the breakdown.
knows how shows how shows why
makes work a drudgery makes work a game organizes love, not work.
says, “Go.” says, “Let’s go.” says: “come.”

For it is the “builder” that includes us all, student, teacher, parent, communities, and society, in the design. The builder watches and learns from both teacher and student. Most importantly, the builder harnesses the love. For it is the love, the love of learning, the love of students, and the love of teaching that drives us all forward to build the education organization of tomorrow. The builder harnesses that love.

Philosopher Emile Chartier said, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one we have.” Might it be time to build a new idea of what educational leadership should be for the future?

Catalytic Questions:

When was the last time you revisited your view of leadership in education? Would you benefit from a fresh look at what education leadership is or needs to be?

Can we continue to rearrange our existing resources, methods, and strategies or is it time that we build an entirely new model of what education is?

Should construction start with demolition before building?

In what ways can you become a builder? How might that impact your school?

Suggested Reading:

What if your school blew up?: The Little Becky approach to school reform


No comments »

Posted in Edreform, Leadership, Schooling By Design

Court Rejects Damages in Special Education Claim

December 16th, 2009
Portions of this post originally appeared in the Education Law News Letter published by Dischell, Bartle, Yanoff & Dooley, P.C. My colleague, Kyle J. Somers, Esquire was helped me draft the original article, which is subject to the same disclaimer that ran in the original post.
This post dives into a major special education case that was decided on November 20, 2009. In that case, the Third U.S. Judicial Circuit joined the majority of the country by holding that compensatory damages are not allowed in special education cases. But first, a cautionary note: this post assumes that you’ve read prior posts and newsletters that describe the IDEA, the concept of FAPE and the basic structure of the federal judiciary. If you have not, start here – then here.
For this post, it is also important to understand what compensatory damages are. Compensatory damages and compensatory education are not the same thing. Compensatory damages are paid to compensate victims for loss, injury, or harm suffered by another’s breach of duty. Compensatory education is an “in-kind” remedy, meaning that the victim gets the thing he or she should have gotten all along. In-kind remedies are more often seen in some types of employment law cases. For instance, when an employee is denied overtime, the employee may receive what he would have earned if overtime had been properly allocated as an “in-kind” remedy. In contrast, compensatory damages would involve a more in-depth analysis of how the denial of overtime really hurt the employee and what it would take to make the employee whole.
The case is Chambers v. School District of Philadelphia, and it is from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Student in this case has Dandy-Walker syndrome. In 2005, the Student’s parents sued the School District of Philadelphia, alleging that it failed to provide FAPE to the Student. The Parents initiated the hearing on their own behalf and on the Student’s behalf. Taking into account prior lawsuits, due process hearings and agency complaints, this was – approximately – the family’s 10th action against the school district.
In the 2005 lawsuit, the Parents claimed that the District owed compensatory damages for violating the Student’s right to FAPE. Notably, the Parents brought this claim on the Student’s behalf and on their own behalf. This means that they claimed the District owed the Student compensatory damages for not providing an appropriate education and they also claimed that the District owed the Parents compensatory damages for not providing an appropriate education.
The Parents’ attempt to assert their own right was a major focus at the trial court level. For reasons that are not particularly relevant for this newsletter, the trial judge decided that the Parents were not allowed to bring claims on their own behalf under the IDEA. Therefore, the judge dismissed the Parents’ IDEA claims without addressing the demand for compensatory damages.
It turns out that the trial judge’s analysis, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, was wrong. This issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 in a case called Winkelman v. Parma City School District. In Winkelman, the Court said, “parents enjoy enforceable rights at the administrative stage . . . it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to bar them from continuing to assert these rights in federal court.” This means that the IDEA does give some substantive rights to parents. The extent of those rights is still being sorted out.
Winkleman was decided after the Chambers case was argued but before it was decided (yes, Chambers was initiated in 2005 and not decided until 2007). Therefore, when the Parents appealed to the Third Circuit, the appeals court decided that the trial judge should have found that the Parents had standing and then should have gone on to address Parents’ claim for compensatory damages. Usually, the Third Circuit would bounce the case back to the trial court and let the trial judge work out the damages issue. In this case, however, the Third Circuit decided to do the work itself.
First, the Third Circuit looked to see what the Supreme Court has said about compensatory damages in IDEA cases. The answer, as usual, is “not much.” The Supreme Court has held that reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses that a school district should have been paying all along is permissible under the IDEA because such reimbursement is not – technically – a form of damages. This distinction comes from a 1985 case called School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts. Noting the distinction is, however, a far cry from saying that compensatory damages are or are not allowable.
Next, the Third Circuit looked to its sister circuits. The issue of compensatory damages has come up in the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh circuits. All of these courts have held that compensatory damages are not allowed under the IDEA. The Third Circuit indicated previously that it may be inclined to agree with its sisters, although it has never actually done so before. This time, the Third Circuit was blunt. It said:
“Given the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Burlington as well as the plain language and structure of the IDEA, we agree with our sister circuits, and now hold, that compensatory and punitive damages are not an available remedy under the IDEA. That language and structure make plain that Congress intended to ensure that disabled children receive a FAPE under appropriate circumstances, not to create a mechanism for compensating disabled children and their families for their pain and suffering where a FAPE is not provided. Accordingly, to the extent the Chambers seek such damages on their IDEA claim, that claim fails as a matter of law.”
What does this mean for IDEA claims? After all, students are still entitled to compensatory education to remedy denials of FAPE. The change, we think, may be about money. When hearing officers award compensatory education, they typically award a bank of hours. Parents can then take those hours and obtain services for children at public expense. Sometimes, however, there is a good deal of additional litigation to assign a dollar value to the bank of hours. This is particularly important when parents want to use compensatory education to purchase physical products, not just educational services.
Currently, there are two competing theories about how to value compensatory education hours. Under one theory, hours are valued at the costs that the school district should have incurred if it had provided the necessary services all along. Under this analysis, the value remains constant regardless of the student’s current needs. Under the other theory, hours are valued at the cost of services that are now required to bring the student to where she or he would be but for the denial of FAPE. This results in huge variability – sometimes favoring the student and sometimes favoring the school district (assigning dollars to hours is a “zero sum game”).
If compensatory education is truly an in-kind remedy and compensatory damages are not allowed, it is possible that the dollar-to-hour analysis used by some courts may no longer be applicable. Those courts currently emphasize that the value of the services that it would take to make the student whole is an important factor. Based on the Third Circuit’s holding in Chambers, it is clear that compensatory damages are not available under an IDEA claim. We at DBYD believe that the courts must now clarify the procedure for valuing an award of compensatory education. For that purpose, the issue that must be settled is whether the courts should ask “what should the school district have spent” or “what must the school district spend to make the student whole.”
This post is subject this blog’s disclaimer and the disclaimer on the original post.

1 comment »

Posted in Brian Jason Ford, Education Law, Special Education

Switch to our mobile site