Public Education News Roundup

 Let's start with the Puget Sound. (all bold mine)

Item #1

This is quite the story via the Seattle Times,  

Issaquah School District discloses bond funds spent on wrong projects 

The Issaquah School District improperly paid for certain capital projects using bonds that voters had approved for other purposes, the school system announced Friday.

Because of an internal audit, the district became aware of this issue. They have accounted for all the dollars, say their school board approved the expenditure(s) but their superintendent would not explain what the money was spent on. (Some ISD watcher can go back to the board minutes and check, not me.) The claim is that the money was spend on "capital projects" and the superintendent says she doesn't think any of the money went to their general fund.

I have said this many times but I'll say it again for those in the back. When you vote in a levy, you are voting for a bucket of money that your district can spend however they want (but if it's a capital levy, it better be for capital works). Also, SPS STILL has dollars from BEX/BTA levies going back decades. So they feel no need to spend the entire levy but use it as some kind of savings account.

Item #2

The Washington State Legislature will consider a bill put forth by state Sen. T’wina Nobles, D-Fircrest,      to provide 45 minutes of recess each day for elementary schools. 

From the Times:

Lawmakers tried to run a similar bill last session, but it died in committee. While there isn’t any adamant opposition, Nobles said there are some fair questions about how schools would be expected to fit this extra time in the schedule, and what it would mean for teacher contracts. She doesn’t see these obstacles as insurmountable. 

Item #3

The Supreme Court has several cases coming before it.

1) The case of a deaf student who, in 12 years of public education, never got a qualified ASL interpreter. 

From the Detroit News

A decision in the case by the high court could help clarify the legal redress available for claims brought against school districts on behalf of children with disabilities.

From Reuters

2) Supreme Court seeks U.S. government view on charter school's skirt requirement

Sounds dumb, huh? But the real question - which has been asked for decades - ARE charter schools "public schools?" Charters have tried to play this game and frankly, I'd be glad for a ruling that answers it. 

Charter schools are publicly funded but operated separately from school boards run by local governments. They usually are independently run as stand-alone entities but also can be managed by for-profit companies or nonprofit organizations running multiple schools, as in this case.

Charter Day School argued that the 14th Amendment does not apply to it because it is a private entity, not a "state actor" like public schools operated directly by North Carolina school districts. The 4th Circuit on a 10-6 vote decided that it was a "state actor" because North Carolina delegated to the school its duty to provide free, universal education to students.

"Courts may not subjugate the constitutional rights of these public-school children to the facade of school choice," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan in a decision joined by her fellow Democratic appointees on the 4th Circuit.

Another twist to this story from the New York Sun:

The question could have broad implications for the autonomy of charter schools across the country, as well as for the possibility of religious charter schools.

The Sun reported last month that the attorney general of Oklahoma has greenlit the establishment of religious charters in the state, and the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City intends to apply to become the first sectarian charter school in the country. 

“Legally, it’s a very complicated question because it depends on the level of government control,” she reckons, highlighting that different states have varying degrees of charter regulation. “It could be that charter schools, in some states, are government schools and, in other states, aren’t.”

Item #4 

A more nuanced article on the lawsuit that Seattle Schools has filed against social media tech companies. 

 Via the AP:

But one Seattle parent and activist says the school district is being "hypocritical" with its use of technology and social media.

“I'm glad to see pushback, and it's not enough,” said Emily Cherkin, a former teacher who advocates for screen-time limits for children.

Cherkin, who works as a consultant for parents and schools, believes schools are sometimes too reliant on technology in the classrooms, including social media and instructional apps.

Cherkin said Seattle students didn’t return to full-time, in-person learning for 400 days during the pandemic.

She said that isolation and increased time on school-issued devices “absolutely exacerbated this crisis.”

Social media expert Andrew Selepak said Seattle Public Schools makes a valid argument about the negative impacts of social media on its students, but the lawsuit might be seen as a money grab.

The Seattle school system went virtual longer than many other school systems during the pandemic, and the system also had a teacher strike to begin the school year.

The social media companies might question how those things impacted students, said Selepak, who coordinates the social media graduate program at the University of Florida.

“You're saying that social media has been this destructive force on students, but social media has been around for a couple decades,” Selepak said. “Why are you bringing up this lawsuit in 2023? Is it because of (social media), or is it because of what you did to students, by having virtual classrooms and lockdowns for longer than other parts of the country?”

FYI

Internet Safety Labs, a nonprofit software product safety testing organization, found nearly every app children use in the classroom is exposing their personal information to third parties and tech giants.

ISL evaluated 1,700 apps, including education-based apps, in hundreds of schools and found that 96% of the apps share students' personal information with third parties, typically without the knowledge or consent of the users or schools. Nearly 80% of those apps received a grade of "do not use," while the others were considered "high risk."