Sunday, July 3, 2016

School Budget and Law




School Budget and Law
Diana Stein
ADMIN/510
July 4, 2016
Russ Cornell

CAPE #2:  Developing a Shared Commitment to the Vision Among All Members of the School Community 



The role of the principal is complex. According to University of Phoenix Understanding and Managing the Complex Interaction of All of the School’s Systems to Promote Teaching and Learning, cont. (2014), the role of the principal includes but is not limited to:
·      Collaborating with educational communities requires a keen understanding of developing, implementing, and monitoring a school’s budget
·      A keen understanding of the financial records, procedures for accurate record keeping and reporting requires an understanding of the legal requirements and the ability to utilize current technologies for financial management and business procedures
·      California School Laws, guidelines, and other relevant federal, state, and local requirements and regulations
·      All issues related to constitutional rights and protections for students and staff (e.g., due process, equal access, free speech, harassment) in various educational contexts are continually monitored to ensure compliance of these rights and protections
·      Legal issues and responsibilities related to evolving technological culture (e.g., ensuring equitable access to digital tools and resources to meet all students’ needs, implementing policies for the safe and appropriate use of information technology, promoting responsible use of technology
·      District policies and specific laws (e.g., related to students with disabilities. English learners, parents/guardians, mandated reporting, confidentiality, liability) at the federal, state, and local levels affect individuals and schools, and how to ensure that the school operates consistently within the parameters of applicable laws, policies, regulations, and requirements affect every aspect within the organization

(University of Phoenix, 2014).
Developing and monitoring the budget includes explicit and clear understanding of how the laws affect budgetary decisions. Professional Development trainings and staff advocacy must be cultivated to bring the entire staff together on areas of concern from privacy rights to fairness and equity. The two areas of interest that I have chosen to focus on for this blog entry are: 
1.     FERPA as it directly relates to student privacy, and
2.      Technology Culture specifically related to cyber-bullying and plagiarism.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Developing, implementing, and monitoring a staff that shares a united vision and understands the relevance of the laws in place requires a firm understanding of why the laws are enacted in the first place is the principal’s top priority.  The principal must work within limited resources to recruit teachers and position them as leaders within the organization to maintain that all collective actions are first and foremost focused on meeting the needs to benefit those whom we serve: our students.
According to the California Department of Education, charter school laws regarding spending are as follows:
Charter schools must complete an LCAP (Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update) and annual update, using the LCAP template adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE), as stated in Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 15497.5. There are no waivers or exemptions to this requirement. School boards and districts are required to work with community stakeholders and develop a “spending plan.” The spending plan is developed using the SBE-approved template, which requires additional information regarding goals, actions and services, and expenditures. In addition, a charter must develop its LCAP with stakeholder input. A charter’s pupil populations and stakeholder community may not be fully identified until the charter enrolls students and begins operations. However, based upon the charter petition and population intended to be served, a charter preparing to enroll pupils will have available to it the additional information required to be set forth in its LCAP, and be able to identify some stakeholders for consultation. The additional information required in the LCAP is important to stakeholders’ understanding of a charter school’s planned operation.  
The initial LCAP may be revised and adopted, with stakeholder engagement.
The mission of the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) is to meet the needs of the Department’s primary customers – learners of all ages – by effectively implementing two laws that seek to ensure student and parental rights in education: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). (U.S. Department of Education, Family Policy Compliance Office, 2016).
            Soon after we began operations of our High School Cyber Café it became evident that the rigorous A-G, UC approved coursework, specifically designed for our online programming would need leveled modifications built-in.  As indicated above, our charter’s pupil population was not fully identified until the students were enrolled. Our alternative school of choice serves students with a wide range of sociological, emotional, and academic needs. Many of the students were struggling to keep up with the rigor of the highly academic program for a variety of reasons. Some student struggles were due to modifications that were documented in student records, while other needs had not yet been identified. The principal needed to use discretion is needed in knowing how much personally identifiable information from education records to disclose with staff members to effectively engage and support student learning and growth.
According to U.S. Department of Education, Family Policy Compliance Office (2016),
FERPA requires that a consent for disclosure of education records be signed and dated, specify the records that may be disclosed, state the purpose of the disclosure, and identify the party or class of parties to whom the disclosure may be made.  34 CFR § 99.30.  As such, oral consent for disclosure of information from education records would not meet FERPA’s consent requirements.
            This is important legal information to note for two reasons. First, teachers and staff often feel compelled to look to each other for support when strategizing the best approach to meet behavioral and instructional needs of all learners. Second, personal information about particular students’ needs must remain private and only released via written, dated, and signed consent for disclosure. Additionally, according to U.S. Department of Education, Family Policy Compliance Office (2016),
While FERPA does not specifically prohibit a school from disclosing personally identifiable information from a student’s education records over the telephone, it does require that the school use reasonable methods to identify and authenticate the identity of parents, students, school officials, and any other parties to whom the school discloses personally identifiable information from education records.  34 CFR § 99.31(c).
            Additionally, while FERPA does not specifically prohibit a school from disclosing personally identifiable information from a student’s education records over the telephone, it does require that the school use reasonable methods to identify and authenticate the identity of parents, students, school officials, and any other parties to whom the school discloses personally identifiable information from education records.  34 CFR § 99.31(c). These are important points to call to the attention of the staff. In the efforts to serve the student in need one must always err on the side of caution and use sound judgment in accordance of the privacy laws mandated by the U.S Department of Education.
            All records and information that contain information on more than one student may only be inspected or reviewed by the parent or eligible student in question (34 CFR § 99.12.).  Additional policies regarding FAQ’s may be located online at http://familypolicy.ed.gov/faq-page/ferpa-school-officials#t55n225
As a direct result of the needs of our student base a re-evaluation of the approved LCAP expenditures this past school year resulted in hiring a full-time school Psychologist and several Student Aides. Support of students’ socio-emotional needs is top priority. Academics place a close second.


Technology Culture
The use of technology is synonymous with an online learning center. In this digital age that we are living in it is clearly evident that students are well equipped and learned about the availability of every techno-gadget available. This is not to be confused with the overall lack of knowledge surrounding best practices while using said gadgets. The result of poor decisions and lack of empathy have resulted in plagiarism and cyber-bullying amongst some of our student body.
Digital classrooms extend far past the school’s campus. The use of smartphones and social media have seemingly permeated every pore of human existence. Students regularly use their phones to complete assignments, from beginning to end, even when more robust technology is made available at arm’s reach. The smart phone has nearly become a permanent fixture at the end of our arms– students and staff alike.  Moreover, the smart phone has replaced a space in human interaction that had previously looked like days spent together investigating, inquiring, and exploring deeper. At first glance exploration is now limited to the eager and then duplicated to the masses via technological devices. To make matters worse, answers to questions on quizzes and cumulative exams are posted in SnapChat and InstaGram as screen shots are shared shamelessly across the cybercafé.  Although adult supervision is dutifully watching there is plenty that goes undetected on any and every given day.
Students can easily submit assignments online. Some teachers utilize services like Turnitin.com to check for plagiarism. Digital feedback may include text, and/or audio comments via Schoology. Teachers utilize a variety of technological tools to collect, grade, and return most assignments including email and website submission pages (LMS). This begs the question of Digital Citizenship. It is the topic of concern for many educators. According to Edutopia (2016):
Students routinely demonstrate appropriate online interaction and encourage peers to do the same. Students are given lessons to understand the concept of copyright and fair use, as well as the new concept of “creative commons” approach to copyright law. Students occasionally use social media for class purposes and maintain standards of appropriate behavior when using it. Bad behavior like cheating, sexting, and cyber-bullying is discouraged (Sedique, 2014).
While I would like to state that this is true in its entirety, I have personally witnessed otherwise. The worst part of all of this is the intention behind the actions. Poor behavior and actions cross the divide between academic and social behaviors. When students bully each other online the footprint is permanent. As a direct result, 49 states now have laws against cyber bullying in place.
According to USLegal (2016),
Cyber harassment refers to online harassment. Cyber harassment or bullying is the use of email, instant messaging, and derogatory websites to bully or otherwise harass an individual or group through personal attacks.
Cyber Law is a rapidly evolving area of civil and criminal law as applicable to the use of computers, and activities performed and transactions conducted over Internet and other networks. This area of law also deals with the exchange of communications and information thereon, including related issues concerning such communications and information as the protection of intellectual property rights, freedom of speech, and public access to information. In the U.S. Cyber Law includes rules and regulations established by Congress, legislatures, courts, and international conventions to govern, prevent and resolve disputes that arise from the use of computers and the Internet.
School officials need to keep in mind their duty of care for all students. This includes the bully and the victim. Many state laws that prohibit bullying and/or mandate discipline of students who engage in bullying also require schools to provide educational and preventative programs on bullying to students, school staff members (not just classroom teachers), and parents. Implementing these programs for each of these school community groups provides an opportunity to create a safe environment for students. State laws require safe use of the Internet curriculum to be taught at all or most grades beginning at the elementary level. Prevention programs that address the well being of students as well as the bully can be provided through collaboration with community resources or through outside grants. Implementing such programs shows the students that all levels of the school organization care for their safety and well being (“The Basics of Cyber bullying,” 2012).
Cyber bullying has proven to be a major issue, with some young people committing suicide because of online attacks. Capital Public Radio, California’s NPR affiliate, says that traditional laws and school-specific anti-bullying policy are based on physical and verbal abuse, where both victim and tormentor are present (Prall, 2014).
            Without support or intervention, students who bully will continue to bully. It is important to note that adults overlook bullying when they:
                condone mistreatment of younger students.
                allow derogatory names or labels for groups of students. 
                overlook casual cruelty, sexual harassment, hate or bias-based behavior, or “hazing” activities in student clubs or sports programs (“Bullying Frequently Asked Questions”, 2016).

Specific CA State Laws Against Bullying
  • California, Cal. Educ. Code § 234, 234.1, 234.2, 234.3, 234.5, 32261, 32265, 32270, 32282, 32283, and 48900
  • California’s “Safe Place to Learn Act” and other statutes establish numerous rights for students, including the “inalienable right to attend classes on school campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful.” 
     According to Cal. Educ. Code § 48900, bullying in California is defined as any physical or verbal conduct, including written communications, which may cause fear, mental distress, or interference with the victim’s studies (“Specific State Laws Against Bullying”, 2016).

Conclusion
Integrating technology into educational practices must include instructional guidelines for best practices while using technology. It would appear that while teachers and administrators may mean well while sharing information, in person as well as online, we must above all keep the laws that protect the rights and well-being of our students first and foremost in mind.  We may conclude that technology and shared information contain critical documentation; therefore it is imperative that we use judgment to ascertain what should be shared, how, and when to share it. The means upon which we choose to share these elements must always be in the very best interest of those whom we serve and in accordance with the letter of the law. Privacy rights and cyber bullying are the kinds of things, as people know, that cross from the school into the home, into the community. Protecting students’ personal information and character necessitates a coordinated response by all parties involved, students and staff alike. The school culture must be based on integrity, honesty, and trust. When these elements are clearly defined and modeled by all everyone wins.


References
Prall, D. (2014). New California law protects students from cyber bullying. Retrieved from http://americancityandcounty.com/new-laws/new-california-law-protects-students-cyberbullying
Sedique, . (2014). Digital Classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/discussion/digital-classrooms
Specific State Laws Against Bullying. (2016). Retrieved from http://education.findlaw.com/student-conduct-and-discipline/specific-state-laws-against-bullying.html
The Basics of Cyberbullying. (2012, April). ERIC, 69(4), 33-37. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ982358
Ubben, G. C., Hughes, L. W., & Norris, C. J. (2016). The Principal: Creative Leadership for Excellence in Schools. Boston: Pearson.
University of Phoenix. (2014). Understanding and Managing the Complex Interaction of All of the School’s Systems to Promote Teaching and Learning, cont.. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, ADMN510 website.
U.S. Department of Education, Family Policy Compliance Office. (2016). FERPA Frequently Asked Questions - FERPA for School Officials. Retrieved from http://familypolicy.ed.gov/faq-page
 USLegal. (2016). Definitions. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/cyber-harassment/


No comments:

Post a Comment