DOCSLIB.ORG

ABSTRACT K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FREE SPEECH: the IMPACT of GARCETTI V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ABSTRACT K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FREE SPEECH: the IMPACT of GARCETTI V ABSTRACT K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FREE SPEECH: THE IMPACT OF GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS ON FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS Erin M. Slater, Ed.D. Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations Northern Illinois University, 2018 Christine Kiracofe, Director With the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Cebellos, this study examines how Garcetti has impacted K-12 public school teachers’ First Amendment free speech protections. Garcetti added a threshold layer to an established test courts had been guided to use—since 1968—when evaluating whether teachers qualified for First Amendment protection when speaking out. Garcetti has guided courts to first consider whether a public employee was speaking pursuant to their official duties prior to ruling on whether a teacher’s speech was a matter of public concern. The Supreme Court ruled when a public employee is speaking pursuant to their official duties, First Amendment protections would not apply. Garcetti involved a deputy district attorney; however, it is the standard public employee free speech threshold that is also applied to K-12 public school teachers. Since the Garcetti decision, very few public school teachers have realized First Amendment free speech protections. This study examines relevant U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Court decisions post- Garcetti to determine the impact Garcetti has had on K-12 public school teachers’ free speech protections. This study reviews relevant case law and related literature regarding public school teacher free speech rulings. Understanding the Garcetti decision is critical if school administrators wish to avoid possible litigation when contemplating discipline against a teacher for their speech. NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DEKALB, ILLINOIS DECEMBER 2018 K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FREE SPEECH: THE IMPACT OF GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS ON FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS BY ERIN M. SLATER ©2018 Erin M. Slater A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF LEADERSHIP, EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND FOUNDATIONS Doctoral Director: Christine Kiracofe ACKOWLEDGEMENTS The process of writing this dissertation has been extensive and one that I could not have completed without the support and love of my family. My husband has been my rock and covered parenting duties and everything else in between when I needed to hide in the library many nights and weekends. My children, Madeline, Hannah and Max have all been my study buddies throughout this process. A huge thank you to Dr. Christine Kiracofe, my dissertation director, who has stood by me since the very beginning even when we wondered if I would ever get here. Her encouragement and knowledge of the law was invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Jon Crawford. Although Dr. Crawford could not remain on my committee due to a well-deserved retirement, his influence and support is throughout this study. Thank you to Dr. Kelly Summers and Dr. Teresa Wasonga, who both served on my pre-defense committee, and Dr. Rosita Lopez for taking on my final defense. Their feedback helped to guide the chapters of this study. I am so appreciative of Mr. Ryan Dowd for his feedback and the ability to edit footnotes in the blink of an eye. My best NIU friend, Dr. Kristin Humphries, walked this journey with me and I am forever grateful for his help, nonstop encouragement and support. Finally, to Judge Walter Bingham MacDonald, you are my hero. Your love of God, your love of family and your love of the law shaped who I am and got me to this finish line even from Heaven. I miss you every single day and I trust you know I did it. I love you, Dad. DEDICATION To Scott, my husband and best friend—thank you. To Max, Hannah and Madeline—you can do whatever you put your mind to. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………. 1 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………….......... 8 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………........... 8 Research Questions………………………………………………………………. 9 Delimitations……………………………………………………………….......... 9 Limitations………………………………………………………………………… 9 2. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………… 10 An Overview of Early Cases Addressing Public School Teacher Speech Rights ……………………………………………….................................. 12 Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)…………………………………...... 12 Connick v. Myers (1983)…………………………………………………..... 17 Garcetti – A New Threshold for Public School Teacher Speech Rights…………. 21 Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)……………………………………………………….. 22 Post-Garcetti: An Overview of Teacher Speech Rights…………………………. 26 Gilder-Lucas v. Elmore County School Board (2006)…………………….. 26 Pagani v. Board of Education (2006)…………………………………….. 29 v Chapter Page Wilcoxon v. Red Clay Consolidated School District (2006)…………….. 31 Houlihan v. Sussex Technical School District (2006)……………………… 35 Ryan v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District (2006)…………………... 37 2007................................................................................................................. 38 Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corporation (2007)…………. 38 Lee v. York County School Division (2007)………………………………… 41 Pearson v. Board of Education (2007)……………………………………… 43 Williams v. Dallas Independent School District (2007)…………………….. 45 2008................................................................................................................. 48 Panse v. Eastwood (2008)…………………………………………………… 48 Samuelson v. LaPorte Community School District (2008)………………….. 50 Carone v. Mascolo (2008)…………………………………………………… 54 Bryant v. Gardner (2008)……………………………………………………. 56 2009................................................................................................................. …….. 60 Baar v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2009)……….…………….... 60 Veggian v. Camden Board of Education (2009)…………………………… 62 Dorcely v. Wyandanch Union Free School District( 2009)……………… 64 2010................................................................................................................. 68 Kramer v. New York City Board of Education (2010)……………………… 68 Weintraub v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (2010)…………………………… ……………………………… 70 vi Chapter Page Reinhardt v. Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education (2010)……… 73 Adams v. New York State Department of Education (2010)…………………. 76 Fox v. Traverse City Area Public Schools Board of Education (2010)……… 79 Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District (2010)……………………………………………… 82 2011................................................................................................................. ……. 86 Johnson v. Poway (2011)……………………………………………………. 86 Condiff v. Hart County School District (2011)……………………………… 90 Nagle v. Marron (2011)…………………………………………………….. 93 Stahura-Uhl v. Iroquois Central School District (2011)……………………. 97 2012................................................................................................................. ……. 100 Kelly v. Huntington Union Free School District (2012)………………......... 100 Massaro v. New York City Department of Education (2012)…………….. 103 Goudeau v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (2012)………………... 106 2013................................................................................................................. ……. 109 Duvall v. Putnam City School District (2013) …………………………… 109 Palmer v. Penfield Central School District (2013)………………………… 114 Bielewicz v. Penn-Trafford School District (2013)………………………… 116 Ross v. New York City Department of Education (2013)…………………… 118 Diadenko v. Folino (2013)…………………………………………………… 121 2014................................................................................................................. ……. 124 vii Chapter Page Mpoy v. Rhee (2014)………………………………………………………… 124 Pekowsky v. Yonkers Board of Education (2014)…………………………… 127 McShea v. School Board of Collier County (2014)………………………… 129 2015................................................................................................................. ……. 133 Koehn v. Tobias (2015)…………………………………………………….. 133 Munroe v. Central Bucks School District (2015)…………………………… 138 2016................................................................................................................. ……. 141 Brown v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2016)…………….. 141 Coomes v. Edmonds School District No. 15 (2016)………………………… 143 2017................................................................................................................. ……. 148 Sorescu v. Harper (2017)…………………………………………………. 148 Payson v. Board of Education of Mount Pleasant Cottage School USFD (2017)………………………………………………………. 151 3. ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………. 156 Methodology for Analysis of U.S. District and U.S. Circuit Court Litigation…… 160 Analysis of Judicial Tests and Holdings in U.S. District Court Litigation………. 161 Judicial Application of the Garcetti Prongs in U.S. District Court Cases……….. 163 Analysis of Judicial Tests and Holdings in U.S. Circuit Court Litigation……….. 165 Judicial Application of the Garcetti Prongs in U.S. Circuit Court Cases…….. 165 Analysis of Litigation and Outcome by State ………………………………… 169 Analysis of U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Investigation Into University Technical Colleges
    A picture of the National Audit Office logo Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Department for Education Investigation into university technical colleges HC 101 SESSION 2019-20 30 OCTOBER 2019 4 What this investigation is about Investigation into university technical colleges What this investigation is about 1 University technical colleges (UTCs) are a type of free school in England that focuses on teaching students who are mainly aged 14 to 19. UTCs are publicly funded state schools, independent of local authorities. Each UTC must be part of an academy trust, a charitable company that manages the school’s budget and employs the staff. Academy trusts are directly funded by, and accountable to, the Department for Education (the Department), via the Education and Skills Funding Agency. Single-academy trusts have one academy school, while multi-academy trusts bring together groups of academy schools. 2 In 2010, the government undertook to improve the quality of vocational education, including increasing flexibility for 14- to 19-year-olds and creating new technical academies as part of plans to diversify school provision.1 The Department supported the establishment of the first UTC in 2010/11 and the government announced its ambitions for UTCs in subsequent budgets.2 The Department’s vision was for employers and universities to work together, with educational experts, to open new institutions to deliver technical education in specialist areas that meets the needs of local employers and the economy. 3 However, UTCs have faced challenges that have threatened their viability. In December 2016, we reported that the then Education Funding Agency had assessed 22 of 47 UTCs as at risk due to financial concerns.3 The financial difficulties were caused, at least in part, by the fact that UTCs had fewer students than predicted.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Faith Schools
    Mainstream Guidance Faith free schools May 2018 Registered Charity No. 1132122 | Company Registration No. 6953650 Contents Page 2: Introduction Page 2: Applying to open a faith school Page 3: Completing the DfE’s application form Page 6: Integration and cohesion Page 7: Issues to consider in a faith free school Page 8: Admissions Page 10: Curriculum Page 12: School life Page 13: Collective worship Page 14: Recruitment Page 16: Governance Page 17: Reaching out to the community Page 18: Obtaining a faith designation Page 19: Further information 1 Introduction Proposers setting up a mainstream free school can choose to set up a free school with a faith ethos or faith designation. This guidance outlines the difference between these terms and the freedoms available to this type of free school. Groups proposing a school with a faith ethos or designation must show that the school will be inclusive to all pupils, including those of other and no faith. Groups proposing to establish a free school with a faith basis or designation must meet additional criteria to demonstrate their commitment to inclusion. The purpose of this guidance is to support applicants to identify the different issues they need to consider when proposing a faith free school. Applying to open a faith school Mainstream free schools can either have a faith ethos or a faith designation. When documents refer to faith free schools, they are normally referring to faith designated schools as this will generally be the status of schools where faith plays a larger role. It is important, when deciding the role you would like faith to play in your free school, to be fully aware of the different freedoms and restrictions that accompany having an ethos or designation, and that you are able to make the case for it being the right choice for your school.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith Primary Schools: Better Schools Or Better Pupils?
    Stephen Gibbons, Olmo Silva Faith primary schools: better schools or better pupils? Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Gibbons, Stephen and Silva, Olmo (2011) Faith primary schools: better schools or better pupils? Journal of Labor Economics, 29 (3). pp. 589-635. ISSN 0734-306X DOI: 10.1086/659344 © 2010 University of Chicago This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30752/ Available in LSE Research Online: December 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. FAITH PRIMARY SCHOOLS: BETTER SCHOOLS OR BETTER PUPILS? Stephen Gibbons*, Olmo Silva** November 2010 Author for correspondence: Olmo Silva, Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE, London, UK. Tel.: 0044 20 7955 6036 Fax: 0044 20 7955 7595 Email: [email protected] *Department of Geography and Environment and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics; and IZA, Bonn.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening a Studio School a Guide for Studio School Proposer Groups on the Pre-Opening Stage
    Opening a studio school A guide for studio school proposer groups on the pre-opening stage August 2014 Contents Introduction 3 Section 1 - Who does what - roles and responsibilities? 5 Section 2 - Managing your project 10 Section 3 – Governance 12 Section 4 - Pupil recruitment and admissions 21 Section 5 - Statutory consultation 33 Section 6 - Staffing and education plans 36 Section 7 - Site and buildings 42 Section 8 – Finance 56 Section 9 - Procurement and additional support 63 Section 10 - Funding Agreement 67 Section 11 - The equality duty 71 Section 12 - Preparing to open 73 Section 13 - Once your school is open 80 Annex A - RSC regions and Local authorities 82 2 Introduction Congratulations! All your planning and preparation has paid off, and the Secretary of State for Education has agreed that your application to open a studio school should move to the next stage of the process – known as the ‘pre-opening’ stage. This is the stage between the approval of your application and the opening of the school. The setting up of a studio school is a challenging but ultimately very rewarding task and it will require significant commitment and time from sponsors and partners. Your original application set out your plans for establishing the studio school, from the education vision and the admission of pupils to the recruitment of staff and the curriculum. Now your application has been approved, you must begin work to implement these plans. The letter of approval you received from the Department for Education (DfE) sets out important conditions of approval. It is vital that you consider these conditions carefully in planning your priorities and what you need to focus on next.
    [Show full text]
  • University Technical Colleges How to Apply
    University technical colleges How to apply October 2015 Contents 1. Things to know before you start 4 Vision 4 UTCs: law and policy 6 2. Getting started 10 Organising your group 10 Establishing your academy trust 12 Financial accountability 13 Conflicts of interest 14 Recruiting trustees 15 Suitability of applicants and applications 16 Priority locations for UTCs 16 Area-based reviews of post-16 institutions 17 3. Preparing and submitting your application 19 What happens when 19 Submitting your application 19 4. Application assessment and interviews 20 Assessment of your application 20 Interviews 20 Decisions and pre-opening 20 Appeals and reapplying 22 5. Application form sections and criteria 23 Section A: Applicant details 23 Section B: Outline of the school 23 Section C: Education vision 23 Section D: Education plan 26 Section E: Evidence of need and demand 30 Section F: Capacity and capability 31 Section G: Budget planning and affordability 40 2 Section H: Premises and Equipment 43 6. Support for applicants 45 Useful contacts 45 Further information and key documents 45 Annex A: Completing the 2014/15 financial template 47 Budget 47 The template 48 Annex B: Glossary of terms 52 3 1. Things to know before you start Vision 1.1 The government wants to improve our education system so that all children thrive and prosper, regardless of their background. The university technical college (UTC) programme, alongside the free schools programme, is helping us realise this vision. UTCs provide an opportunity for employers and universities to work together, with educational experts, to open new institutions that deliver high quality technical education in a range of specialist areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Academies, Autonomy, Equality and Democratic Accountability: Reforming the Fragmented Publicly Funded School System in England’
    West, A. and Wolfe, D. (2019) ‘Academies, autonomy, equality and democratic accountability: Reforming the fragmented publicly funded school system in England’. London Review of Education, 17 (1): 70–86. DOI https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.1.06 Academies, autonomy, equality and democratic accountability: Reforming the fragmented publicly funded school system in England Anne West* − London School of Economics and Political Science, UK David Wolfe − Matrix Chambers, UK Abstract This article focuses on the transformative academies policy in England. Based on an analysis of documentary evidence, we argue that the policy has resulted in the fragmentation of the state-funded school system and stark variation between academies, with those within multi-academy trusts (MATs) having no legal identity. We examine the variation between funding agreements, the control by central government, the role of MATs and the governance of academies. We propose policy options to improve the current incoherent and fragmented set of provisions, including restoring the legal identity of schools in MATs and allowing academies if they so wish, to convert to maintained schools. Keywords: academies; multi-academy trusts (MATs); funding agreements; law; governance; finance Introduction Since 2000 there has been a rapid and radical transformation of publicly funded school- based education in England: over a third of schools – and nearly three-quarters of secondary schools – are now ‘academies’ rather than ‘maintained’ by local authorities. Academies are owned and run by not-for-profit private trusts (exempt charities) that register as companies with Companies House and are subject to company law. They are controlled and funded directly by central government by means of a contract – a funding agreement – between a trust (that is, a legal entity) and the Secretary of State for Education (DfE, 2018a), rather than being run by a governing body in accordance with statutory education law, as is essentially the case for maintained schools.
    [Show full text]
  • The Introduction of Academy Schools to England's Education
    IZA DP No. 9276 The Introduction of Academy Schools to England’s Education Andrew Eyles Stephen Machin August 2015 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor The Introduction of Academy Schools to England’s Education Andrew Eyles CEP, London School of Economics Stephen Machin University College London, CEP (LSE) and IZA Discussion Paper No. 9276 August 2015 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Schools, Utcs and Studio Schools a Briefing for UNISON Activists and Organisers
    Free schools, UTCs and studio schools A briefing for UNISON activists and organisers In England, there are several types of new school emerging which have the same status as academies. These include free schools, university technical colleges (UTCs) and studio schools. UNISON is firmly opposed to the steps being taken to drive schools toward academy status. Instead, we believe in good, local schools that are part of a national comprehensive education system and which are accountable to local communities. What are free schools, UTCs and studio schools? Free schools, UTCs and studio schools are all set up as academies. However, unlike academies which are existing schools that have become academies, free schools UTCs and studio schools are brand new schools. Like academies they are funded directly by central government and are divorced from the local authority. They are run by a charitable company which controls the school’s land and assets, and appoints the governing body and headteacher. And just like other academies, these schools can set their own pay and conditions, admissions policies and curriculum. Unlike academies which are existing schools that have changed status; free schools, UTCs and studio schools are brand new schools. In the majority of cases staff are newly-appointed (unlike in academies where staff are transferred) and staff are employed by the governing body or trust which oversees the school and which sets the contract of employment, pay, terms and conditions. Free schools, UTCs and studio schools are funded using public money – and they cannot make a profit. However, like all state schools, they can subcontract elements of the running and management of the school to other organisations, including private companies.
    [Show full text]
  • University Technical Colleges
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 07250, 27 July 2020 By Robert Long, Shadi University Technical Danechi, Nerys Roberts, Philip Loft Colleges Inside: 1. The development and role of UTCs 2. Expenditure and Financial Position of UTCs 3. Pupil Profile 4. UTCs: Performance and Ofsted Reports 5. Commentary on UTCs 6. Policy Developments post- 2015 7. Reports on UTCs www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 07250, 27 July 2020 2 Contents Summary Briefing 3 1. The development and role of UTCs 5 1.1 Conception 5 1.2 What are UTCs? 6 1.3 Opening a New UTC 8 1.4 Closure/Conversion of UTCs 11 2. Expenditure and Financial Position of UTCs 14 3. Pupil Profile 18 3.1 Free School Meals 18 3.2 Special Educational Needs 18 3.3 Gender 18 4. UTCs: Performance and Ofsted Reports 20 4.1 Pupil Attendance 20 4.2 GCSE results 21 4.3 Pupil Outcomes: Destinations 21 4.4 Ofsted Reports 22 5. Commentary on UTCs 23 6. Policy Developments post-2015 26 6.1 2015 Pause in UTC Programme 26 6.2 Requirement to inform parents 26 6.3 ‘Baker Clause’ 26 6.4 Membership of Multi-Academy Trusts 28 6.5 Impact of EBacc 29 6.6 Introduction of T-Levels 30 7. Reports on UTCs 31 7.1 Public Accounts Committee (2020) 31 7.2 NAO Report (2019) 32 7.3 Education Policy Institute (2018) 33 7.4 IPPR (2017) 34 7.5 NFER Report (2017) 36 Cover page image copyright: Laboratory by biologycorner.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith Schools in England: Faqs
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 06972, 20 December 2019 Faith Schools in England: By Robert Long and Shadi Danechi FAQs Inside: 1. Introduction: what is a faith school? 2. Frequently Asked Questions 3. Statistics www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 06972, 20 December 2019 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Introduction: what is a faith school? 4 2. Frequently Asked Questions 5 2.1 Can faith schools use faith-based criteria in their admissions policies? 5 New academies and free schools: the 50% limit and abandoned proposals to repeal 6 2.2 What can faith schools teach in Religious Education? 6 Local authority maintained secondary schools 6 Academies and Free Schools 7 2.3 Can faith schools use faith as a criteria when hiring staff? 7 2.4 Do particular rules apply in the inspection of faith schools? 9 2.5 Can schools become faith schools when converting to academy status? 10 2.6 Can faith schools teach creationism? 10 2.7 Do children attending faith schools have particular rights relating to school transport? 10 2.8 How can new faith schools be opened? 13 2.9 Do faith schools have to teach Relationships and Sex Education? 14 2.10 What do faith schools have to teach about same sex marriage? 14 3. Statistics 17 3.1 Number of faith schools 17 Region and local authority 17 Pupils 18 3.2 Secondary school performance 19 Cover page image copyright: Haddington Infant School Classroom by David Gilmour. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of University Technical Colleges: Report – Year One
    Evaluation of university technical colleges Report – Year One November 2017 Evaluation of university technical colleges Royal Academy of Engineering Edge Foundation November 2017 Authors: Tami McCrone, Kerry Martin, David Sims, Chloe Rush, National Foundation for Educational Research, The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Berkshire SL1 2DQ www.nfer.ac.uk Registered Charity No. 313392 ISBN: 978-1-909327-36-8 © National Foundation for Educational Research 2017 Available to download from: www.edge.co.uk/research/research-programme www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/evaluation-of- university-technical-colleges How to cite this publication: McCrone, T., Martin, K., Sims, D. and Rush, C. (2017). Evaluation of University Technical Colleges (UTCs). Slough: NFER. Contents Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 1 2 Research aim and objectives 1 3 Research Methodology 1 4 Key findings 2 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Background 5 1.2 Aims and objectives 5 1.3 Methodology, sample and attainment characteristics 5 1.4 Structure of report 7 2 Employers’, governors’ and HEIs’ engagement 9 Key findings 9 2.1 Levels of employer involvement 9 2.2 Types of employer activities 10 2.3 Project-based learning 11 2.4 Governors’ and HEIs’ engagement 11 3 Young people’s views 13 Key findings 13 3.1 Reasons for enrolling 13 3.2 Attitudes towards education, home life and the future 14 3.3 Attitudes towards employer input 15 4 Perceived impact on young people 17 Key findings 17 4.1 Impact on academic learning and technical skills 17 4.2 Impact on transferable ‘work ready’ skills 18 4.3
    [Show full text]
  • Huntington Union Free School District District
    HUNTINGTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT GUIDANCEPLAN K-12 2020-2021 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgement…………………………………………….......... 3 Counseling Staff……………………………………………………. 4 Introduction………………………………………………………… 5-7 -Commissioner’s Regulations 100.2 -Learning Standards for Career Development and Occupational Studies Guidance Mission Statement………………………………………. 8 Guidance Program…………………………………………………. 8 Overview of New York State Goals……………………………….. 9 Grades K-6…………………………………………………………. 10-20 Grades 7-8………………………………………………………….. 21-29 Grades 9-12………………………………………………………… 30-41 2 Acknowledgement I would like to give special thanks to the American School Counselors Association (ASCA) and the New York State School Counselors Association (NYSSCA) for the guidance, collaboration, and essential guidelines that were provided. I would also like to thank the Huntington guidance team and building administrators for their input and support. Jeannette Alomia Director of Guidance and Testing, K-12 Member Organizations Suffolk Directors of Guidance (SDOG) Western Suffolk Counselors Association (WSCA) American School Counselors Association (ASCA) New York State School Counselors Association (NYSSCA) New York State Association for College Admissions Counselors (NYSACAC) North Shore Consortium 3 Counseling Staff Flower Hill Primary School J.T. Finley Middle School Gisselle Soto, Social Worker Paloma Herrera, School Counselor 425-4782 673-2187 Cynthia Fletcher, Psychologist Alison Logan, School Counselor 425-2055 673-2191 Kathryn Costa, Social Worker Jefferson
    [Show full text]