Chicago Tribune - More students switch to online schools to escape bullies

Chicago Tribune - More students switch to online schools to escape bullies

My son dropped out to avoid the psychological and emotional damages of adult bullying.

DAYTON, Ohio Krista Hooten saw "terror" in her daughter's eyes as they started back-to-school shopping for seventh grade.

Her daughter, Kelsey, had been bullied the previous year. It started emotionally: Other girls called her ugly and spread rumors about her. But it quickly turned physical: They pulled her hair on the bus and shoved her to the ground.

"It changed her personality," Hooten said. "It was a horrible, horrible year."

Hooten and her husband decided that night they had to make a change. They pulled Kelsey from public school and enrolled her online, through a charter school affiliated with the national education company K12.

Nearly a quarter of parents who enroll their children in K12 programs said bullying is a reason they removed their children from brick-and-mortar schools, according to a recent survey.

About 94 percent of those parents said going online helped address the issue, the survey commissioned by K12 found.

But bullying is a larger issue than that in America.

One-third of all children an estimated 13 million students nationwide are targeted each year, according to the White House. Those students are "more likely to have challenges in school, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to have health and mental health issues." In some widely publicized cases, victims have committed suicide.

Krista Hooten said her daughter did not vocalize the extent to which she was bullied during sixth grade at Northeastern Local Schools district in Clark County.

Even when the attacks became physical, the Springfield teenager would "come home and not act like it was fine, but act like she was dealing with it and it wasn't that big a deal," Hooten said.

"All I knew at that point was she didn't want to go to the point where she would leave in the morning, she cried all the way to the bus stop," she said.

Hooten said she talked to her daughter's teachers and school administrators but, "their suggestion was: Just tell her to find another group of friends."

Now 16 and in 10th grade, Kelsey said she has been able to escape bullying since she started attending the Ohio Virtual Academy.

The academy now enrolls more than 12,600 students across the state, according to the Ohio Department of Education. It was given an "F" for the indicators it met on the latest state report card, which measures what percent of students passed achievement and graduation tests. About 42 percent of its students graduate in four years, according to its latest report card.

Students are given home computers, printers and a microscope and watch live videos and do chats with licensed teachers.

The online school was created in 2006, and has grown as an option for bullied students even as cyberbullying has become more prominent.

While bullying has always been an issue, one of the reasons it is more discussed today is the rise in activity online, said Susan Davies, school psychology program coordinator at the University of Dayton.

She trains school psychologists on how to recognize, react to and prevent it.

"Because of cyberbullying, students can't escape it," she said. "It's not something that's just happening at school. They're being targeted in their home when they're not even around other kids. That has become really difficult to address at the school level because there's kind of that question: Where does our jurisdiction end when it's our students that we're caring for throughout the day being bullied through the Internet?

"The kids are so savvy that they're kind of escaping notice of the adults in their lives. As soon as we get on whatever the next hot social media site is and start monitoring kids on Facebook. Well, Facebook isn't cool anymore, we're going to move to Twitter. And we're going to move to Instagram. It's hard for us to monitor them."

The Ohio Virtual Academy is not immune to cyberbullying, but does have a zero-tolerance policy, like many schools, said Kristin Stewart, senior head of school.

The school has expelled and suspended students in the past, though it's not common, she said.



The academy trains its teacher to look for signs of bullying, and Stewart said she thinks "in some ways it's brought to light even sooner because the teachers are online with students."

"Sometimes it takes these students a little bit to earn trust back," Stewart said. "But once they do, we have especially in middle school and high school we have blogs and Facebook where kids can go online and meet each other. They can approach getting back to school safely because they're in their homes and they're feeling safe. They can move at their own pace."

The school also offers extra curriculars, dances and other get-togethers for students.

Students also choose the school because they are struggling in certain subjects, because their families rely on them to work, because they have children of their own or because they want to challenge themselves, Stewart said.



Hooten's two other daughters also attend the Ohio Virtual Academy. Lexie, 14, started to give herself more time for her 20-hour-a-week dance commitment. Hannah, 11, enrolled because she was missing many days of traditional school due to her asthma.

Kelsey will begin next year taking college courses for free through the state's postsecondary enrollment option.

Her mother said the change in her personality was almost immediate after she left pubic school.

"She was just happier again," she said. "You just really underestimate, even though she's beautiful ... it's amazing what peers can do when they're telling you the opposite."

Education Week

Education Week

In response to a slew of complaints from schools and districts, the U.S. Department of Education is planning to delay for two years a significant expansion of its civil-rights data collection that asked more questions about student discipline and bullying. 

The Education Department had wanted to dig deeper into school discipline and other issues starting in the 2013-14 school year. But now, that information won't be collected until the 2015-16 school year, according to new documents posted on the office for civil rights' website. 

Data points that will be delayed include: the number of incidents of violent and serious crimes, number of school days missed by students who received out-of-school suspensions, and number of allegations of harassment or bullying on the basis of sexual orientation or religion. 

Reporting that data will be optional. And the department says in its Dec. 4 Federal Register response that it will use the extra time to "provide intensive technical assistance to schools and school districts so they will be prepared to provide accurate data when required for the 2015-16 collection." 

The Education Department, which received nearly 300 comments on the proposed new questions, said "many of the commenters who raised concerns about the proposed data collection focused on the need for more notice and lead time to provide comprehensive and accurate data..." 

Indeed, accuracy of the civil rights' data has been a problem. The data collection became public last year for the first time, and reports school-level data that often can't be found anywhere else on everything from course-taking to grade-level retention. 

Federal officials, however, are keeping a few new questions for the 2013-14 year, including ones about chronic absenteeism, distance education, and the cost to parents of preschool and kindergarten programs. (Schools and districts will answer the survey questions in the fall of 2014, which will reflect data from the 2013-14 academic year.) 

Final approval of this new data collection, which must come from the federal Office of Management and Budget, is expected in early 2014. 

New York City special-education cases against the city on the rise - Daily News

New York City special-education cases against the city on the rise - Daily News

SO MANY PARENTS filed complaints over the city’s handling of special education for their kids that the state was forced to call in upstate hearing officers to help with the caseload, the Daily News has learned.

State figures show a whopping 2,114 complaints filed during September and October — roughly 50 cases per business day, and a more than 33% spike compared with last year.

Almost all of them — 97%— are seeking public funding for private school tuition, the city said.

Experts suggested multiple factors could account for the increase: The state’s decision to limit the use of certain private schools, an earlier backup in appeals that may have delayed lawyers from filing new cases, and the city’s special-education reforms for public schools.

The city has been pushing for more special-needs students to attend public schools that are closer to home — but the United Federation of Teachers and some parents argue these schools aren’t always equipped to serve the kids.

“The kids are not getting what they need for services,” said Carmen Alvarez, the UFT’s vice president for special education.

City officials say it’s too early to be sure the pattern will hold and that November already shows a downtick in hearing requests.

The city Education Department “is committed to making sure that students with disabilities receive the programs and services they need,” said schools spokesman Marcus Liem.

U.S. Department of Education official discusses federal education priorities with NSBA « School Board News

U.S. Department of Education official discusses federal education priorities with NSBA « School Board News

A top federal official outlined the U.S. Department of Education’s priorities and upcoming initiatives at the National School Boards Association’s (NSBA) 2013-14 Board of Directors meeting on Dec. 6, 2013.

Deborah S. Delisle, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), oversees more than 100 prek-12 programs, including early learning, accountability, mental health, literacy, civic education, and school safety; as well as programs for disadvantaged students, including Title I, and programs for homeless and migrant students.

Delisle emphasized the need for local control and flexibility as she spoke to the group of school board leaders and NSBA staff. She discussed topics including flexibility to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—and noted that there currently there are 37 separate accountability systems. She also touched on college affordability and funding; the increasing number of homeless kids in college; and school climate and safety, including the agency’s Project Serve.

Delisle also discussed the disparate suspension rates among students living in poverty and students with disabilities, a topic of interest to NSBA. She referred to evidence in civil rights data collected by the agency–as an example she spoke of a school that suspended an African-American kindergartener for five days for pulling a fire alarm; a similar incident in another school resulted in a one-day suspension for a student who was white.

And Delisle pointed to the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., as an example of the need for enhanced mental health support.

The Department of Education also is examining ongoing “opportunity and expectation gaps,” and the ongoing need to deal responsibly with equity issues, she noted in her remarks.

NSBA is represented by Executive Director Thomas J. Gentzel in bi-monthly meetings with top Department of Education officials and leading education organizations, which include AASA, the School Superintendents Association, National Association of Elementary School Principals, Council of Chief State School Officers, National Association of State Boards of Education, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The meetings serve as a platform for the groups’ executive leadership to convene to discuss various issues, share new policy and update the entire group on happenings within each organization.

Feds decline civil rights investigation of EPISD cheating scandal - El Paso Times

Feds decline civil rights investigation of EPISD cheating scandal - El Paso Times

Department of Education won't take action on potential civil rights violations from cheating at El Paso Independent School District because they occurred prior to the last six months, two top department officials told U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke in a letter this week.

The officials said department regulations bar such investigations if the allegations are more than 180 days old, but another Department of Education official told the El Paso Times that the agency has much broader discretion that would allow an investigation if high-ranking officials so chose. The conflicting responses left O'Rourke frustrated and seeking additional answers.

Two assistant secretaries of education wrote a letter to O'Rourke this week in response to his request for an update on the federal agency's actions since an audit released this summer found widespread cheating between 2007 and 2010 in EPISD. In particular, O'Rourke had asked whether the agency was following up on an audit recommendation that the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights investigate whether the cheating scheme violated the civil rights of EPISD students.

The audit found that the cheating scheme targeted students in EPISD's Priority Schools Division -- particularly Mexican immigrant students in high schools. Some were improperly retained in ninth-grade to keep them from taking the 10th-grade standardized test used for federal accountability measures; others were inexplicably vaulted from ninth to 11th grade for the same purpose, the audit found. Others were simply pushed out of school

Department of Education regulations prevent an investigation of civil rights violations in the EPISD cheating scheme because the allegations are too old, two assistant secretaries of education told O'Rourke in a letter Tuesday.

"(The Office for Civil Rights') regulations require that complaints be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination -- the underlying incidents at issue occurred in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years, with ramifications for graduation rates through the 2011-12 school year," said Deborah Delisle, the assistant secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary of the Office for Civil Rights.

But the Department of Education regulations allow broad discretion in ordering civil rights investigations beyond the 180-day window, said Catherine Grant, the spokeswoman for the agency's Office of the Inspector General.

It was an audit by the inspector general, begun in December 2010 and finalized in June of this year, that recommended a follow-up investigation by the civil rights office.

The Times asked Grant if the auditors were aware of the 180-day provision and, if so, why they'd suggest further investigation of allegations they knew were several years old.

"Yes, we were aware of the 180-day complaint filing time frame," Grant said in an email to the Times.

"We made the recommendation because OCR has discretion to extend the 180-day complaint deadline," she said.

"Second, a complaint is only one of the bases on which they are authorized to conduct a review or investigation. OCR can conduct a review whenever they want; and can investigate based on any information that indicates a possible violation."

The media office at the Department of Education declined requests for comment on the letter sent by Delisle and Lhamon to O'Rourke.

O'Rourke has been pushing the Department of Education for months for explanations about actions it's taking toward EPISD and other El Paso County school districts where cheating was alleged. He was clearly exasperated with the latest developments, saying the speed of the department's response so far has been "incredibly frustrating."

"This doesn't seem to be a priority for them," he said. "I'm just expecting more out of the Department of Education. I want to be constructive. I don't want to just rail against them, I want to find a way that we can work to get this done."

After learning that Grant had told the Times that the department had broad discretion on civil rights investigation, O'Rourke sent another letter Friday night to Delisle and Lhamon, the two assistant secretaries.

"Could you clarify whether the (Office for Civil Rights) has declined to exercise this discretion in this case or whether you would consider future complaints from the time period covered in the audit? Additionally, given your broad authority ... to investigate outside of the complaint process, will you be using that authority to carry out recommendation 1.10 of the audit to determine whether students' civil rights were violated and what the appropriate remedy for those students should be?" he wrote.

Department of Education media officials couldn't be reached for comment after O'Rourke sent the letter Friday night.

"The single most urgent part of this whole scandal is trying to get justice for these kids who were denied an education," O'Rourke said in an interview with the Times.

Andrew Kreighbaum covers El Paso Independent School District. He may be reached at 546-6127.

El Paso's schools cheating probe gets mixed signals » Abilene Reporter-News Mobile

El Paso's schools cheating probe gets mixed signals » Abilene Reporter-News Mobile

EL PASO — Federal education agency officials say they won’t pursue potential civil rights violations from a cheating scheme at El Paso public schools, though the school district may not be totally in the clear.

Another department official said it has discretion to extend that 180-day window, the El Paso Times reported Saturday.

U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of El Paso received word this week from the U.S. Department of Education that agency rules bar investigations of allegations that are more than 180 days old.

O’Rourke, a Democrat, has been pushing the Department of Education for an update since an audit last summer revealed a cheating scheme focusing on Mexican immigrant students and standardized testing used for federal accountability. He sent another letter to the department late Friday seeking clarification.

“The single most urgent part of this whole scandal is trying to get justice for these kids who were denied an education,” O’Rourke told the newspaper.

The El Paso Independent School District is one of at least three in the area where reviews have found manipulation of testing. The former El Paso school superintendent, Lorenzo Garcia, has pleaded guilty to fraud related to the scheme and is serving a three-year prison term.

An audit released over the summer found widespread cheating between 2007 and 2010 in the El Paso district.

Two assistant secretaries of education, in a letter to the congressman this week, said civil rights violations in the district’s cheating scheme are too old to be pursued as civil rights complaints.

“(The Office for Civil Rights’) regulations require that complaints be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination — the underlying incidents at issue occurred in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years, with ramifications for graduation rates through the 2011-12 school year,” said Deborah Delisle, the assistant secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary of the Office for Civil Rights.

However, Catherine Grant, a spokeswoman for the agency’s Office of the Inspector General, said civil rights investigations can be made beyond the 180-day limit and that the office “can conduct a review whenever they want; and can investigate based on any information that indicates a possible violation.”

The audit found students in El Paso’s Priority Schools Division — particularly Mexican immigrant students in high schools — were targeted in the scheme. Some were improperly kept in ninth grade to keep them from taking the 10th-grade standardized test used for federal accountability. Others inexplicably were promoted from ninth to 11th grade for the same purpose, according to the audit, and others were pushed out of school.

Has Your District Destroyed Documents or Lied To The OCR

I know that the district lied to the OCR when they were investigating my claim.  They also destroyed documents that should have been in my son's file.  The woman at the OCR even told me that she felt they were being too defensive and less than honest.

Title 18 United States Code Section 1001

There are many types of obstruction of justice. Some of them, such as threatening or otherwise tampering with witnesses, or attempting to bribe judges, do not involve lying or other false statements. However, false statements—and related activities such as the destruction or concealment of documents or other physical evidence—can constitute obstruction of justice. Federal statutes make it “unlawful to ‘influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.”[10] In order to convict under these statutes, “the government must prove that there was a pending…proceeding, that the defendant knew of the proceeding, and that the defendant acted ‘corruptly’ with the specific intent to obstruct or interfere with the proceeding or due administration of justice.”[11]

Making false statements can certainly constitute obstruction of justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that if a person lies to a federal agent, those lies will be obstruction of justice if the conduct of the defendant has some “relationship in time, causation or logic” to a government proceeding so that the false statements may be said to have the “natural and probable effect” of interfering with that proceeding.[12] If the defendant “lacks knowledge that his actions are likely to affect a pending…proceeding,” he “necessarily lacks the requisite intent to obstruct.”[13] It is not enough that the defendant knows about the pending government proceeding at the time of his false statements. To be guilty of obstruction of justice, a defendant must make those statements knowing that they would be repeated or conveyed to the court, grand jury, or federal agency conducting the proceeding.[14]

Recently, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002[15], which included a specific section declaring that the destruction or alteration of documents (or the inclusion of false entries in such documents) constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice, which carries a twenty-year prison sentence. Destroying documents—or otherwise concealing tangible evidence—clearly can subject anyone engaging in such conduct to criminal prosecution.

From the legislative history of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it appears that the new obstruction of justice section was intended to be broader in scope and to eliminate some of the ambiguities and technicalities that had been required for a conviction as described above.[16]

Federal Lying Statute—No Oath Required

Businesspersons must be especially aware of the federal lying statute contained in Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 1001, which states that: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any judicial matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.”[17]

Under this statute it is a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false statement concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the United States. The falsehood must be material; but this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision of the decision making body” which receives the false statement.[18] This statute has an extraordinarily wide scope. Unlike perjury, the false statement need not be given under oath. Any statement, whether made orally or in writing, can violate this law.

The statements need not be made in a formal setting. Any false statement made to any federal agent is enough. This is true even if the statement was not recorded and no transcript was made. (Often the only evidence of the false statement consists of notes made by the federal agent). It is not necessary that the government actually be deceived or misled. Unlike obstruction of justice, there is no requirement that the person making the false statements be aware of a government proceeding and intend to interfere with that proceeding. In fact, it is not even a requirement that there be any sort of judicial or other government proceeding. Any false statement made to any federal employee can be sufficient to violate this law. Martha Stewart, for example, was convicted of this crime because she made false statements to employees of the FBI and the SEC. Her lies were not made in a formal interview, and the only evidence of what she said was in the notes and recollections of the federal employees involved.

In fact, this crime can be committed even without making any false statement to a federal employee. All that is required is that the false statements have some connection to some matter within the “jurisdiction of the…United States.” Persons who lie to state agencies can be convicted of this crime if statements to that state agency might influence the functioning of federal agencies.

People have been found guilty of this crime because they lied to private contractors hired by a federal agency.[19] In April 2004, several executives at Computer Associates, the giant software company, were charged with this crime; three of them have pleaded guilty to the charges. They did not lie to any federal agent. Instead, they were charged with making false statements to attorneys working for Computer Associates who were conducting an internal investigation of allegations of improper conduct within the business. Since this internal investigation concerned activities that were within the jurisdiction of the United States, the government asserted that lies to the business’ attorneys were crimes. Prosecutors stated that the executives knew that their statements would be turned over to the government and because of this, they needed to tell the truth.[20]