New York City recently joined a growing list of jurisdictions that have issued social media guidelines for teachers. The rush to create such guidelines has been driven by a perceived surge in inappropriate teacher-student interactions over social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter.

In light of this recent surge, it’s really only a matter of time before Maryland issues its own guidelines and rules.

NYC’s guidelines appear to be grounded in common sense, marking a departure from the knee-jerk reaction of some states to ban any teacher-student contact made via social media. The city’s department of education did favor a ban at first, but ultimately rejected the idea. It is doubtful that anything but the most carefully tailored ban would survive First Amendment scrutiny.

There are concerns that guidelines being issued sacrifice the potential educational benefits of social media in favor of a semblance of security.

Darrell M. West, a Brookings Institution vice president, said the New York City guidelines make it appear that the department is thinking only about the downsides of social media and protecting itself. “It sounds like best practices on how to avoid getting sued, as opposed to thinking about how to use social media to broaden the learning experience,” he said. “We all know there has been bad behavior enabled by social media, but we shouldn’t make policy based on extreme cases.”

Maryland should take into account the possible uses of social media in the classroom when the time comes to issue similar guidelines.

Hopefully Maryland’s track record on the issue of social media is an indication of how it would proceed when tackling this issue. Last month, Maryland became the first state to prohibit employers from requiring their employees to hand over their social media account passwords.

Guidelines for teachers which similarly support the freedom of the individual to make use of social media, while balancing the need to ensure student safety, is the desired outcome.

Bryan Utter is an associate attorney at HooverLaw.

Standardized tests are an indelible part of the public conversation on how to improve our nation’s education system. Lawmakers of all stripes have either passed or proposed legislation tying everything from school funding to teacher retention to student performance on these tests.

The end result is myopia. High scores are the Holy Grail by which all other aspects of education are measured.

This would be fine if all students were alike. Special education teachers, advocates, lawyers and parents of children with special education needs have been screaming for years that they are not. Thanks to the efforts of all of these groups, substantial progress has been made in ensuring that each student is afforded an education that is appropriate to that student’s individual needs.

School officials, teachers and lawmakers now understand that it is improper to measure the success of a student with special needs by the same metric applied to mainstream students. That makes news like this very disappointing:

“…[I]n Illinois, Florida, New York and other states, education leaders and teachers unions are trying to create evaluations that take into account factors such as a student’s prior performance, socio-economic background and English language skills. Creating those measurements for general education teachers has proven challenging enough, but for special education teachers, it is even more trying, as officials try to find a way to evaluate growth that often can’t be measured on a test.”

…

“The great concern right now in many states is they’re using the same criteria for the general education teachers that they’re going to use for the special education teachers and there’s real resistance to that,” said George Giuliani, director of the special education program at Hofstra University’s Graduate School and executive director of the National Association of Special Education Teachers.

This needn’t be as difficult as the states are making it. Schools already evaluate special education students’ growth in ways that can’t be measured on tests. They do this in the form of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that the law requires must be afforded to all students coded SPED.

The answer is simple. Use the metric that already exists. Measure the success of special education teachers in their progress in implementing students’ IEPs.

Abandoning a jury-rigged evaluation system based off new, potentially esoteric criteria and adopting a measurement system based on the IEP has an added benefit: it ties teacher success to student success. The new requirements would serve as a bolster to existing special education-related laws and regulations. The end result would be an increased likelihood of student success.

Sometimes something just makes sense. This is one of those times. As states address this issue, they should remember that the metric is already in place, and tie special education teacher evaluations to IEP implementation.

Bryan Utter is an associate attorney at HooverLaw.

Bad news for some Prince George’s County middle school students — look forward to longer schools days in the fall. The newly minted mandate that will extend school days by up to 40 minutes, with no financial burden, is an attempt to increase academic achievement.

The extended day is part of a national movement, spearheaded by the D.C. schools chancellor. While necessity of increasing academic results is the key driving force, the design presents the question of whether more schooling is the answer.

The extra time will be used to teach students who have fallen behind core subjects, and bolster additional foreign language and arts skills for students who have already displayed academic achievement. Though this extra time will likely benefit high-achieving students, is extra schooling the answer for remedial learners?

On one hand, the extended school day can be seen as mandatory homework time. If every student spent more time studying after school, they would certainly do better on standardized tests since that’s the measurement of academic achievement these days, right?

Not necessarily. A longer school day likely implies a larger amount of homework. And for students who are already struggling in school, more in-class assignments may actually work to deter these students from working independently after school.

Also, if students are falling behind in core subjects, the answer should not be more of the same. Even though Superintendent William Hite, Jr. says that the extended time will certainly not be more of the same, how can parents be sure that his statement is not just a piece of PR?

Schools need to instead seek out why students are falling behind and focus on how to change that. Though extended school days may sound like a death sentence for some students, it depends entirely on how that time is used.

How about one-on-one or group tutoring? Overlooking budgetary issues, teachers could focus on individual strengths and weaknesses, tailor lesson plans to suit the needs of students who require a little extra help and seek to engage students. That time could then be used for school-related activities or homework help for students who have met school-mandated testing requirements.

Either way, PG County students are not going to be happy about the planned extension. Change is always hard. But in the long run, the extended school day may be fruitful. It all depends on what each school does with the time.

It happens with great frequency. Kids are bullied in school until the point their torment becomes too much to handle. That’s when some feel they have to protect themselves and begin secretly bringing a weapon to school. Hidden in book bags or pockets, they know that it’s a serious violation of school policy to possess a knife or any dangerous instrument in school. But by that point, a significant percentage of students who’ve been subject to ongoing and serious threats of school bullying don’t think — they react.

The most recent case to make the news comes out of Ohio and is a perfect example of this growing phenomenon. I regularly serve as attorney to students and families in quite similar cases here in Montgomery County schools and in schools around Maryland. Age seems to make no difference.

Students who are victims of bullying can easily find themselves facing expulsion for bringing weapons to school in their misguided efforts to defend against bullying. From very young kids in elementary school through kids in every grade on through high school, there has been a marked increase in victim/weapon expulsions across the U.S.

Our law firm has represented kids as young 7 in these disturbing cases. Of course it’s wrong to bring a dangerous object to school — the most serious student offense of all — but these are kids who were caught carrying a weapon on school grounds as a result of their dire desperation to protect themselves against bullying.

Instead of focusing the microscope on specific incidents of weapon-totting students, schools should focus on what they need to do to protect their students from bullying, so students will not feel the need to protect themselves in school.

Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, is preparing to ease graduation requirements in order to lower the drop-out rate.

It all started eight years ago, when the school district was brainstorming how to better prepare its students for college. Someone came up with an idea: mandating all students take college prep classes. If all students are required to pass a college prep class in order to graduate, they’ll certainly be better prepared than a student who has not taken the class.

Well, here’s the rub. What if those seniors who are forced to take the college prep class do not pass, and are not able to graduate as a result?

That’s the question LA’s school district apparently did not anticipate eight years ago and is now faced with following the plan to implement the policy this fall. School officials are scrambling to cover their bases and ease the graduation rates for seniors so as not to create another problem for the school district — higher drop-out rates.

Though college prep classes may not be the best preparation for college — despite its name — the issue here is that the school district is backtracking on a plan that it believes would prepare students for college.

This fast-paced education reform is prevalent across the nation. School districts are acting too fast to increase graduation rates, test scores and number of students going to college. These accelerated reforms are forcing schools to dash toward the finish line, all the while missing crucial steps in between.

Schools: Slow down and focus on how to better prepare students for life after high school. Don’t just push them in a class titled “college prep.”

The incidents are numerous. It all starts with a simple, harmless text message and grows into a full blown inappropriate student-teacher relationship.

While some school districts around the country are rushing to ban student-teacher texting in order to diminish the likelihood of improper relationships developing, others are testing whether the texts are actually beneficial to students.

Though texting between students and teachers exposes both to the possibility of a private relationship, advocates of the model argue that teachers can use the form of social media to engage students.

Why not email? Well, most young students prefer texting and other social media outlets to email, which many see as outdated. Though email or a form of instant messaging, like Gchat, would be the answer if all students have smart phones or regular access to a personal computer, most do not. But, everyone texts.

The model would work best if the potential for the school-related texts to turn private was completely removed. This could be accomplished through the use of group text messaging systems and providers that shield phone numbers so that no personal information is shared.

Despite the obvious vulnerabilities of this model, if it better engages students in classroom content and makes them more excited about going to school, then school districts should be more receptive to the benefits of social media.

The Maryland Board of Education sent public schools throughout the state a very important message, when it issued an opinion reversing Talbot County Public Schools’ suspension of two high school lacrosse players – context matters.

Graham Dennis and Casey Edsall, both seniors and varsity athletes at Easton High School, were suspended following a search of their lacrosse bags by the school principal and other staff members. Prior to the search, the Dennis admitted to having a pen knife in his bag. Edsall admitted to having a lighter.

The boys used the tools to repair their lacrosse sticks.

Despite this plausible and reasonable explanation, the school suspended Dennis for 10 days and Edsall for one. In addition, the school contacted police and Dennis was arrested on juvenile charges.

Acting on their conviction that their children had done nothing wrong, the boys’ parents fought the suspensions. Dennis’ parents also fought back against the juvenile charges, which were eventually dropped. Talbot County schools defended its decision to the uttermost.

Ultimately, the Board of Education rebuked the school system for failing to exercise proper discretion.

The Board’s decision is the right decision. Context does matter. Unfortunately, more and more students are being suspended, or even expelled, for nonviolent disciplinary infractions. This includes students who have never been in trouble before.

The decision in this matter signals that the Board has noticed the trend, and indicates that it will closely scrutinize the meting out of harsh punishment in nonviolent disciplinary matters.

Bryan Utter is an associate attorney at HooverLaw.

A recent wave of student-on-student cyberbullying through fake online social profiles has thrown the problem into the spotlight and prompted the question of what schools are doing about the issue.

Though school-imposed restrictions on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook have often gone too far, when it comes to cyberbullying schools should take a stronger response in order to protect students from the likely psychological and emotional costs of bullying.

However, school boards do not always take immediate and effective action. Many times, schools do not even have a cyberbullying policy in place.

So how are schools overstepping their bounds in restricting students’ freedom of expression online while, at the same time, failing to use the same heavy-handed response when it comes to protecting its students against cyberbullying?

Obviously, this question cannot be simply answered. It represents a larger, underlying problem with our schools — one that will not be fixed on a school-by-school basis. Thus, individual states have stepped in to protect the rights of its students in the stead of its schools. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center, 38 states have laws that include provisions against “electronic harassment,” while 14 states have laws that expressly prohibit cyberbullying.

Yet, under these laws, if cyberbullying occurs the incident would be investigated by the police and likely processed through the legal system, rather than reviewed within school boundaries. Obviously, this makes cyberbullying a more serious occurrence – which it is — but at the same time, thrusts the potential for legal punishments and a real record upon the perpetrator.

This evolution, perpetuated by the increased intensity of cyberbullying threats, further substantiates the claim that social networking posts are not all fun and games. Students need to be aware of the immense consequences that follow any online post, even ones that are made in a joking manner.

The Motion Picture Association of America has finally given in — after a few choice words were removed, of course.

Bully, the documentary that has been a hot topic of late over its R-rating, will be released in theaters on April 13 with a PG-13 rating.

The lowered rating is a win, not just for the Weinstein Company, who produced the film, but also for teens nationwide, who otherwise would have been unable to see the film (without sneaking in).

Bullying is a prevalent issue in schools today and doesn’t seem to be letting up anytime school, especially with the onset of cyberbulling. The Lee Hirsch documentary follows five students who experience horrific bullying on a daily basis.

Now that the rating has been lowered to allow teens 13 and older, no student (of age) has an excuse not to see this documentary. Schools: You should show the film and establish and open dialogue about bullying. Parents: Take your teens to see the film.

Back in the day, teens would usually confine their profanity to places and people slightly more receptive to the F-word. Behind closed doors, in back of the local gym, gas station or neighbor’s house — far away from the hearing and immediate disapproval of their parents and other adults who might overhear them. As we all know, those good ol’ days are long gone. The latest instance of a teen’s private-public F-bomb made national news.

Austin Carroll, a high school senior, writing from his home, recently held forth for his online friends by dropping — you guessed it — an amazing number of F-bombs in his “colorful” Twitter post. His profanity was aimed at no one in particular, not his teachers or school administrators or his fellow students. But when his high school got wind of his F bomb Tweet, Austin was expelled.Austin is presumably appealing his expulsion, arguing, no doubt, that his free speech rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution have been impermissibly trampled by the school ‘s order of expulsion.

He has an excellent argument. However, the little that his school has leaked indicates that he was online either (1) using his school issued computer, and/or, (2) using his school’s web portal when sending out his Tweet.

This recent example brings the issue of school disciplinary actions on social media in the national spotlight. On one hand, increased scrutiny by the schools may be a solution for cyberbulling, but what about teens who are just blowing off a little steam and not directing their messages at anyone?

While the case in point is still ongoing, one thing can be said for sure: teens need to be a bit more cautious when posting online. In this day and age, you never know who’s watching.