Online Learning Opens Door For More Student Punishment If Students And Parents Are Not Careful

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

As students have been pushed to online learning by Coronavirus, everything may outwardly seem very safe and innocent to parents, with kids attending distance classes quietly.  However, online school creates new opportunities for students to be disciplined by their school, and even suspended or expelled.

Recently, students, in addition to random hackers, have been attending online classes and (intentionally or unintentionally) making rude comments, playing inappropriate music, using fake names that a teacher may say (unaware of the rude context), playing pranks on their classes or instructors and causing other havoc which may not have occurred had they been in a "real" classroom.  Students have also appeared scantily clothed or even nude.  Some have inappropriate material, purposefully or not so purposefully, in the background of their camera which could get them in trouble, like drug paraphernalia, or inappropriate language.  Being online suddenly opens up our homes to the government, in the form of teachers and school officials.

Where before a rude joke was just to a classmate privately, that joke may now be broadcast to the entire class.  And students now suddenly have new opportunities to gain online fame for making fools of their teachers or being the most outrageous troublemaker.  Maybe before the stay-at-home order, the same student would never have imagined doing these things, but now they may feel more safe or untouchable as heck, they are already at home anyway so what would a suspension matter?    

Students forced online who cause havoc will probably receive swifter and more punitive punishments, with no or abbreviated "hearings," and no ability to properly defend themselves in person, which is a distinct disadvantage.

Additionally, now there may be an undeniable electronic record of their conduct, making it easier for school administrators to punish.  Suddenly a student with a perfect record may have a suspension they have to bring up on their college applications, all because they were stupid when they got stuck at home.

All school rules continue to apply online, regardless of where the student is.  Parents should discuss with their kids how each school rule applies and work out how NOT to misspeak or break a rule.  This may mean students ensure their name is the RIGHT name, not a prank name, before logging on, that students don't make inappropriate comments during their sessions, that nothing improper appears within view of their camera and that they mute their microphones and turn off the music when attending classes online.  Students should wear proper attire, not have drug paraphernalia in their environment, or other evidence that could be misconstrued in some way (e.g. as a threat, weapon, or illegal substance, etc.) and just make sure they look at their surroundings from the view of the camera.  

Students and parents should also be mindful that other people and conversations in their home may be seen or heard during class sessions, which is not always a good thing.  

Parents should take care of their kids now, as always, yet increase their scrutiny of what their kids are doing in this "new" school environment and beware of the rampant opportunities for students to "misbehave" (in the school's eyes) in new and novel ways during their enforced home schooling. 

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website, Blog, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - Online Learning Opens Door For More Student Punishment If Students And Parents Are Not Careful

Covid-19 provides an opportunity to re-imagine a New Normal

Pic courtesy: ICRISAT

This was unexpected. The world’s leading global business publication, the Financial Times, wrote in an editorial: “Radical reforms – reversing the policy direction of the last four decades – will need to be put on the table.” After four decades of following a policy direction that relies extensively on free markets, it took a brutal assault by the Corona virus pandemic for the world to realise that it wasn’t working well. The fault lines are clearly visible.    

Historically, the aftermath of pandemics have led to a changed eco-system. Once the Corona virus pandemic reduces in intensity, and the world returns back to its daily routine, it is expected that the government will be back on the table with renewed emphasis on human welfare. With markets tottering in the wake of the pandemic, decades of underfunding of public health and education for instance will now receive priority. It may also radically overhaul the urban landscape with working from home becoming an increasing norm, more because it reduces the overhead costs for the companies. 

But whether the post Covid-19 will see a perceptible change in the neoliberal economic policies that the world has continuously followed for four decades, which has acerbated income inequality and led to a massive destruction of natural resources, is something that we will have to wait and watch. More importantly, whether the reduction in air pollution levels leading to clear blue skies, the cleaning of river Ganges and Yamuna which seemed almost impossible, the return of the birds in our balcony we had almost forgotten about, and numerous other subtle but substantial changes that people had begun to cherish during the lockdown will disappear once it is back to business as usual is again a question that only time can answer.  

Corona virus outbreak has brought economies to a virtual standstill, with only agriculture serving as the lifeline. At a time when aggressive consumerism the world has witnessed over the past few decades was down to a trickle, it is the abundance of global food reserves – and more importantly in India – that kept the war against the pandemic focused. With overflowing food stocks, totalling 77 million tonnes, three times the public distribution system requirement, India is in a much comfortable position. Despite the efforts, as part of the market driven economic reforms, to dismantle public procurement limiting it to the food needs of only 20 per cent of the population (from 67 per cent served under the National Food Security Act), the redeeming feature is that India’s food supplies can last for over a year.

At a time of burgeoning food stocks, the tragic images of lakhs of migrant workers, carrying their children in laps and their meagre possession on their head, trudging back to their villages had filled media spaces. Walking hundreds of kilometres at a stretch and that too without any assurance of food these migrant works are in reality agricultural refugees, who were driven out of their villages when agriculture failed to provide them enough to survive. Migrating to the cities with the hope of making a decent living, these workers were in reality living only by their daily wages; whatever they earned, they spent. And when the cities disowned them after the lockdown was imposed, they were desperate to return home because that is where they belonged to.

Again, a fallout of faulty economic policies. Agriculture has been deliberately kept impoverished to enable farmers to abandon farming and move to the cities. Over the years agriculture is being sacrificed to keep the economic reforms viable. This is what the World Bank had prescribed. At a conference I attended in 1996 at the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai, the then Vice President of the World Bank, Dr Ismail Serageldin had said that the bank estimates the number of people migrating from the rural to urban areas in India in the next 20 years, which meant by 2015, to be equal to twice the combined population of UK, France and Germany.

Given that the combined population of the three countries at 200 million, 400 million people were expected to move out of rural areas in India. This is the price the poor were made to pay to keep the economic reforms viable. And when even that didn’t work for them, they preferred to return home.  

Now that the avalanche of migrant workers returning home has struck a strong visual in our minds of the large number of agricultural refugees walking home, Covid-19 provides an opportunity to re-imagine a New Normal -- where agriculture becomes economically viable and sustainable, where farming is not stifled to prepare a workforce for the industry, where agriculture becomes the pivot of the economy providing the rightful income into the hands of farmers. This will only be possible if along with public health and education, revival of agriculture too receives a priority in policy planning. A regenerating agriculture alone has the ability to reboot the economy, protect nature, bring back birds and butterflies, and save the planet from the catastrophic effects of climate change that awaits us.   

Reversing the policy direction of the past four decades, as the Financial Times had said, is an urgent necessity. It requires bold decision making along with the courage to redraw a new development pathway. It also requires immense political backing to thwart the lobbying pressure from the market players, both in the media as well as academia. It requires an exceptional ability to challenge the dominant economic thinking, to disband the model of economic growth which has relied solely on wealth creation. It has sucked income from the bottom to the top, enabling the rich to amass wealth. But to expect the present dispensation of mainline economists to make an attempt towards an everlasting change – so as to prepare for a new normal -- is perhaps asking for the impossible.

There is no dearth of saner voices. It is time to find them, and acknowledge their role. After all, as someone rightly said, it is the normal that we don’t want to return to. #

Agriculture offers lifeline amid pandemic. The Tribune. April 24, 2020

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/agriculture-offers-lifeline-amid-pandemic-74360  

READ MORE - Covid-19 provides an opportunity to re-imagine a New Normal

Partisan media fuels divisive Covid-19 coverage
Be honest: as you’ve been reading, viewing, and listening to Covid-19 coverage, have you thrown anything yet at the TV? Used language traditionally attributed to sailors?

While my TV is still intact, I can’t say that my language hasn’t occasionally transcended the merely colorful. My chief irritation, one that threatens my mom washing my mouth out with soap, is the predictable yet lamentable descent of the media into partisanship, even during this crisis.

Partisan Covid-19 coverage reflects not just a long term trend of political polarization in the US, but the reality that, in an election year, almost everything takes on a nasty partisan stench. Jack Healy, Campbell Robertson, and Sabrina Tavernise recently wrote in the New York Times, “(As) Mr. Trump and his allies have defended his actions and accused Democrats and the news media of fanning fears to ‘bring down the president,’ a growing public health crisis has turned into one more arena for bitter political battle, where facts are increasingly filtered through a partisan lens.” (March 1). 

Essentially, what we see are media battle lines drawn by Trump’s own words and positions. If  Trump comes out in favor of something, his media supporters line up behind him, seeking to buttress the president’s position while simultaneously attacking the liberal media for its unfounded attacks. Trump’s opponents are just as quick to point out the illogic in the positions taken by the president and his media allies.

One example is the battle over hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug repeatedly touted by Trump as a Covid-19 cure.

There are dozens of examples of Trump promoting hydroxychloroquine. According to Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, “Trump effectively turned the (April 4-6) coronavirus press briefings into infomercials for the merits of hydroxychloroquine. (April 6)   At his briefing on April 4, Trump said, “What do you have to lose? Take it.” (New Republic, April 8)  At an event April 14, Trump asked recovered Covid patients, “So you took the hydroxyl? And, “Why did you take the hydroxy? Why did you do that? You saw it on television?” (Politico, April 20) The Politico article goes on to note that Trump’s hydroxychloroquine mentions have dropped since his April 14 briefing.
Conservative media have been in lockstep with the president’s recommendation.

A simple Google news search of “hydroxychloroquine and foxnews.com” on April 20 picked up 2,680 results, with “headline-says-it-all” titles like “South Dakota implements statewide hydroxychloroquine trial,” “Barr says media on jihad against hydroxychloroquine,” and “Michigan Dem lawmaker describes how Trump’s boosting hydroxychloroquine saved my life.” The search did turn up one Fox outlier: “Hydroxychloroquine does not clear coronavirus, but can alleviate symptoms.”

During a two-week span between March 23 and April 6, Fox hosts and guests promoted hydroxychloroquine nearly 300 times. Of these nearly 300 mentions, the vast majority came from four Fox shows: The Ingraham Angle (84 promotional mentions), Fox & Friends (76), Hannity (53), and Tucker Carlson Tonight (22). Television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz has been one of the most persistent promoters of hydroxychloroquine on Fox... According to Media Matters’ internal database, Oz has made at least 23 appearances on Fox News weekday programming between March 12 and April 7 to discuss hydroxychloroquine. (Media Matters, April 18). 

Fox allies like the New York Post also chimed in with stories like, “Those slamming Trump over chloroquine should remember AIDS medication wars” (April 12).

Meanwhile, the liberal media sharpened its claws and went after the president and his conservative media allies on hydroxychloroquine. CNN crowed, “President Trump is wrong in so many ways about hydroxychloroquine studies. Here are the facts” (April 11). The story asked, “Is hydroxychloroquine safe for coronavirus patients? Trump says yes. Doctors say the drug can have serious side effects. Trump makes it sound like hydroxychloroquine is harmless. ‘It doesn't kill you,’ he said at a briefing on April 1, one of just many times he's repeated that sentiment.” (April 10)

A similar Google news search on April 20 showed 106,000 hits for the search, “Trump wrong hydroxychloroquine.” Stories found under this search include sources like the Washington Post (“How false hope spread about hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19” and “The real reason Trump is obsessed with hydroxychloroquine”), the New York Times (“Ignoring expert opinion, Trump again promotes use of hydroxychloroquine”), and The Guardian (“How an unproven drug, hydroxychloroquine, became Trump’s miracle cure”).

The partisan tussle about hydroxychloroquine reflects similar battles about the speed and efficacy of the administration’s Covid-19 response, the China travel ban, the availability of testing and personal protective equipment, and the advisability of opening up the economy quickly.

This partisan coverage of the pandemic has impacted audiences, according to polling done by both Pew Research and Gallup. Both pollsters show that Republicans were much less likely to take the risks of the coronavirus as seriously as Democrats.

The March Gallup poll “finds that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to be worried about getting the virus; much less trusting in the federal government to deal with the situation; and more likely to believe that the virus will have a negative effect on the world's economy. Further, workers who identify or lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely to say the virus will have a negative impact on their work.” (Gallup.com, March 20)

The March Pew Research survey found that 83% of Republicans who “consumed only a diet of outlets with right-leaning audiences” believed the news media had exaggerated the risks of the virus. Only 53% of Democrats who consumed only outlets with left-leaning audiences thought the same. Pew found that 79% of people who said they turned to Fox News believed the media had “exaggerated the risks of the virus.” Only 59% of Republicans surveyed said the media has done "very well" or "somewhat well" in their coverage.  In contrast, 80% of Democrats believed the media had covered the virus well. (Pew Research, March 18) 

What the surveys don’t show is the influence the coverage has had on recent anti-shutdown protests around the country, and on the pressure often misinformed citizens exert on public officials to make factually dubious decisions.

Partisan coverage of the virus might deliver political advantages in the short run, but in no way serves society in the long term. Such reporting further polarizes the public, segregates us into tribes armed with misleading or incomplete information, and makes compromise on issues even like Covid-19 seemingly impossible.

Covid-19 should’ve  afforded the U.S. an opportunity to unify, but instead, thanks in large part to partisan media and the politicians they represent, the pandemic instead is just one more symptom of the “us vs. them” disease that infects our society and leaves us swearing at the television.

READ MORE -

Lockdown: Agriculture serves as the lifeline

When people across the country are confined to their homes the only pressing requirement they have is for food – and that too three times a day. Whether you are rich, sitting comfortably in your homes and trying out new recipes to prepare a fresh dish every other day or you are a poor migrant struggling to find a banana that you can still eat from the rotten heap lying on the banks of Yamuna river, food is after all a basic human necessity.

It is at this difficult time of a lockdown that the often repeated phrase -- agriculture is the mainstay of the Indian economy – not only becomes obvious, but is firmly established.

But imagine the chaos if the country didn't have enough food at these testing times? Imagine if we had followed the prescription of our mainline economists who had wanted food stocks limit to be reduced to feed only 20 per cent of our population? Imagine if we had dismantled the APMC mandis and done away with crop procurement as the industry had always wanted us to do? Even despite having a record foodgrain surplus – 77 million tonnes, at least three times more than the requirement -- still 96 per cent of the lakhs of migrants did not get their share of dry rations, says a study.

The avalanche of migrants heading back home after the lockdown was imposed, travelling on foot for hundreds of kilometres, without an assured supply of food, has provided a visual image to a monumental crisis that was building up for decades. The massive reverse migration, and subsequent efforts being made by the state governments to provide temporary shelter and food to those struck on the way, has brought forth another hidden dimension of the ongoing agrarian crisis. Urban centres had failed to ‘absorb’ the migrant workforce, maintaining a clear cut social distance from the migrants, and when the daily wage link was suddenly snapped the teeming work force felt abandoned.  

A majority of these migrant workers are unlikely to return soon. The fact that they took the hard decision to tread back home to be with their families, where they wouldn’t be at least facing hunger, speaks volumes of the flawed economic thinking which actually pushed people out of the rural areas to migrate into the cities because the cities needed cheap labour. With farm prices kept low to keep food inflation under control, and at the same time provide cheaper raw material to the industry, agriculture was deliberately kept impoverished. Despite being denied their rightful income, farmers continued to produce a surplus for the country year after year.

The lockdown coincided with the rabi harvest season. This year, despite unseasonal rains, production was expected to be bountiful. But with people asked to stay indoors, and with restaurants, hotels and dhabaspulling down the shutter, the demand for perishable vegetables and fruits collapsed. Reports of farmers re-ploughing fields of cabbage, cauliflower, raddish, peas and other vegetables poured in. Tomato farmers dumped the harvest in the crop fields. Premier products like strawberry had to be fed to cows. Button mushroom rotted. The demand for premier Alphonso mangoes, grapes, banana and even plantation crops like coffee, tea, cashew nuts and spices faced price crash. Poultry suffered the worst. Milk, fisheries and flowers were similarly badly hit.

Shortage of farm labour compounded the existing crisis. Even in case of wheat, where a record 106 million tonnes of grain is to be harvested, paucity of farm workers has hit harvesting operations. Although the government has for all practical purposes kept agriculture, horticulture, plantation crops, fisheries and animal husbandry out of the lockdown provisions from April 20, procurement of wheat is slowly picking up. But interestingly, while it is agriculture that suffered a severe blow during lockdown 1.0, the impression being generated is that the rural areas are relatively better off.

This crisis apart, the bigger question is whether the pandemic will change the way we look at agriculture? Whether agriculture will receive priority in public policy? Or once the fire-fighting operations are over, it will be back to square one. While the State’s role in health and education is expected to expand, will agriculture also emerge on the top of dominant economic thinking? Will a relook at agriculture bring back the focus on making agriculture economically viable? These are questions that need to be seriously deliberated because the policy changes after Covid-19 will determine the future of agriculture.

Corona virus pandemic therefore has come as a loud knock at a time when the dominant economic policies were aimed at propping up the industrial sector. Over the past few decades, agriculture had been systematically ignored in policy planning. The best reflection for this perhaps comes from the declining public sector investments in agriculture. Between 2011-12 and 2017-18, public sector investments in agriculture hovered between 0.3 to 0.4 per cent of the GDP for a sector which employs 50 per cent of the total workforce. It is futile to expect a miracle in agriculture without providing adequate investments commiserating with the population involved.

With agriculture emerging as the strong pillar of the economy at these difficult times, it should be abundantly clear that any further effort to marginalise farming will be politically suicidal. While agriculture will need a total revamp, and with huge investments the challenge will be to provide farmers with a remunerative price and being assured a monthly income. At the cost of repeating again, an OECD study had shown Indian farmers lost Rs 45-lakh crore between 2000 and 2016-17 by being denied their rightful income. Imagine if Rs 45-lakh crore (or Rs 2.6 lakh crore every year) was paid to farmers, there would have been hardly any possibility of farmers abandoning agriculture and migrating to the cities. Post Covid-19, let’s aim at Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas and Sabka Vishwas.

This is not a wishful thinking. It is an idea whose time has come. #

Saved by Plough. Orissa Post. April 18, 2020
https://www.orissapost.com/saved-by-the-plough/ 

READ MORE - Lockdown: Agriculture serves as the lifeline

Covid-19 in the media
On Thursday, I'm making a presentation on Zoom for the International Relations Council titled, Covid-19 in the media. I'm taking a cue from an old Clint Eastwood western, and exploring the issue by looking at the good, the bad, and the ugly. The bad, in my view, is the way the media has reflexively descended into partisan coverage of the pandemic. The slide below is my way of trying to categorize the way pro and anti-Trump media have framed the crisis. Do you agree? Disagree?

Join the discussion by signing up for the Zoom presentation from 5-6pm central time (US) on Thursday at https://www.irckc.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=1364284&group= . The event is free, but you'll need to register first. Hope to "see" you there.

READ MORE -

Remembering Martin Khor -- a tribute

Pic courtesy: Wikipedia

The stakes were very high. 

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was deliberating, and if I am not mistaken this was sometimes in July 2008, on the extent to which agricultural products could be covered under Special Safeguard Measures (SSM). While big players wanted to limit the number of products on which tariffs could be imposed at a time of surge in farm imports, India wanted more policy space to apply SSM, which means wanted more products to be covered.  

In other words, India’s effort ostensibly was to protect the loss in farm livelihoods that is expected at a time when a flood in cheaper imports can bring about a crash in domestic prices for farmers and thereby result in livelihood loss. The talks at Geneva hinged on a clearly visible imbalance, with big players expected to get through. Knowing the disastrous implications in store, it was at that crucial juncture that I organised a one day conference of farmer leaders in New Delhi. What made this conference significant was that it was for the first time that almost 50 farmer leaders from all over the country, cutting across political as well as ideological affiliations, had assembled on one platform.

And secondly, after a day of intense brainstorming, interspersed with angry reactions from some of the farmer leaders present, the resolution that was issued, signed by each of the farmer leaders, representing the 600-million strong farming community, is believed to have tilted the balance at the Geneva negotiations. A day later, I received an email from Martin Khor, who was then leading the Third World Network (TWN) team at Geneva, keeping a close eye on every happening. Complimenting me for organising the farmers meeting, he said in as many words that the resolution from Indian farmer leaders had thrown the big boys of international trade at the SSM negotiations on the back foot. He then spoke to me and in his own inimitable style explained how the New Delhi statement from farmer leaders would turn out to be a saviour for farming communities throughout the developing world. 

What Martin had hinted turned out to be true. The SSM talks eventually collapsed.

Martin (1951-2000) passed away peacefully at Penang in Malaysia on April 1. In his death, the world has lost one of the biggest champions of economic equality, social justice and just globalisation. He was on the forefront of a continuous battle against the hegemony of transnational corporations, and how the international laws and treaties were being suitably designed to circumvent their unfettered dominance across the developing economies. With his immaculate penchant for minute details, and his deep understanding of the geo-political dimensions, the insights he provided to activists and negotiators alike was certainly instrumental in influencing the negotiations.  

Like hundreds of researchers and trade analysts from across the globe, I too learnt a lot from his analytical grip over trade negotiations. I would look eagerly every week in the SUNS Monitor for his reports and unique analysis of events as they took place. The quarterly Third World Resurgence magazine too came in handy to follow the developments in international trade, multilateral investment, climate change as well as in various related aspects of the globalisation process. He stood, and stood tall, for protecting the development interests of the Global South and in a lot many ways I think his contribution, although the developing world may fail to acknowledge, remains unparalleled.

Later in 2009 he was appointed the Executive Director of the South Centre in Geneva, a position that was earlier held by Dr Manmohan Singh. There again, his sharp analysis came in handy for developing countries to frame their trade arguments.

I met Martin first time at Penang in 1984 when the Consumer Association of Penang (CAP), a formidable research and advocacy platform for development issues, invited me along with Claude Alvares and Sharad Joshi from India to attend a conference which led to the formation of Third World Network. Not much was known about him at that time. He was a simple affable guy always greeting you with a smile. The Uruguay Round of negotiations leading to the formation of WTO catapulted him to prominence. It was during those days that I was tracking the global trade negotiations especially in the context of food, agriculture, biodiversity and intellectual property rights and that gave us ample opportunities to meet and interact. In many of my trips to Geneva, and sometimes at the WTO Ministerial Summits, it was always an added bonus to sit and chat with him. One thing that emerged every time we spoke was that he always stood for protecting the rights of the poor, and was a farmers’ friend.

I particularly remember when a prominent NGO invited me to be part of a group of WTO Ambassadors and negotiators who were being taken to visit the farming communities in and around the Black forest region of Germany. Before I embarked on the travel, and knowing that I was among only a couple of civil society representatives from the developing world, I spoke to Martin to know a little bit more about the background of the accompanying WTO negotiators, where they came from and who I should be spending more time during numerous opportunities for informal interactions that the visit would certainly throw up. 

I must acknowledge that was very helpful in sharpening my understanding. Since the visit was planned for the rural areas, I also got a peep into how EU’s massive agricultural subsidies were being disbursed. 

The passing away of Martin Khor into history is a great personal loss. He was in true sense a philosopher, friend and guide. The challenge now is to continue his legacy.

Goodbye, my friend. #

Remembering Martin Khor, Champion of Economic Equality and Just Globalisation. The Wire. April 6, 2020. https://thewire.in/trade/remembering-martin-khor-champion-of-economic-equality-and-just-globalisation

READ MORE - Remembering Martin Khor -- a tribute

How To Ensure Your Kids Get Educational Services And Don't Get Left Behind During Coronavirus

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Millions of students have been impacted by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) in California and the US.  Being a student forced home with no or limited access to education has been detrimental to say the least.  The lack of instruction, increased time on social media or television, and lack of in-person socialization is changing students' lives.  How do we navigate this situation to ensure that our kids don't just languish, overlooked, waiting for help?  

As most school districts have announced closures the rest of the school year and schools will not start the 2020-21 schoolyear until August 2020, this will be a long long wait for education: roughly five months if school stopped in March 2020.

Some school districts have done very little, and students have not received books, have no online lectures or instruction, and have not heard from their teachers.  Some districts are doing more, but it is very slow.  Even in a "perfect" online situation, there will be dramatic limitations due to the digital format.  It is also likely that despite many great educational resources online, the majority of students will be dependent on their local schools for instruction, assignments, materials and otherwise.  

Students are now truly just a list of names or a picture on a computer.  

To get any attention or help, parents and students will need to step up, taking appropriate action to get services for their languishing kids.

I have always promoted to parents to put all requests and issues in writing when communicating with a school on student needs or problems.  With email, putting things in "writing" is easy.  A nice handy record is always developed.  This can be good and bad depending on how someone communicates, so always keep your manners in when emailing.

Emailing and/or sending formal correspondence to schools regarding student grading, materials, instruction, access to education and issues is even more important now.  

Any written request needs to be clear, organized and have certain elements.  For example, an email should ensure the "RE:" line is clear, and that in the body of the email the student is identified properly with their name, student ID/date of birth, as appropriate, school, grade level, and that the needs and issues are outlined, with the exact requests listed.  It is always easiest to get what you want if you ask for it first.  Otherwise, schools will create their own idea of what you want, or do nothing at all.

It should also be sent to the appropriate parties, including perhaps the Principal, teachers, and maybe even someone at the school district, as appropriate.

It cannot be understated how important professional communication outlining the issues, needs and desired outcome is for parents, particularly when many are vying for attention.  Without this, schools may not even reply to an email.  They are presumably pretty busy, and won't know what to do with an email that says "Help me, my son is at home doing nothing," but may reply to one with the parent name, student name, school, grade, current classes, what the student is doing and what the student needs from the school right now.  Clear communication is vital.  

If the school fails to follow-up, additional communication should be sent, and maybe even via regular mail or facsimile (if available).  Higher ups should be contacted as needed.

Some of the things parents should be asking for, could include:

1)  School textbooks
2)  Other materials needed for classes
3)  Assignment lists and due dates
4)  Instructions for those assignments
5)  Teacher notes and overheads
6)  Video or live instruction in all subjects, preferably daily at the same time a student normally had a class 
7) Technology that the student may be lacking to access their education
8)  Instruction on any technology a student may need to access their education
9) Tutoring on-line for all classes as needed and hours for such
10)  Policies on due dates, methods of turning assignments in, any grace period for turning work in, and any changes to the class grading policies
11)  Testing instructions, including when that will occur, and if it will be open book
12)  Any other item the student may be lacking to receive their education.

And remember, public school education is supposed to be free, so these items should be free of charge.

It is really important that our kids, who are now digital images, don't get lost or forgotten.  Inevitably, many will.  Many will not get materials or assignments.  Others will never do anything they are sent.  Still others won't ever be able to access any instruction that may be available or won't understand it.  It is critical that parents step in to help them or they may be severely damaged by the Coronavirus situation and forced exclusion from school, even if they never become physically ill.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website, Blog, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - How To Ensure Your Kids Get Educational Services And Don't Get Left Behind During Coronavirus

Should we call Covid-19 a 'crisis' and a "pandemic'?
As I wrote in the new Peace Journalist magazine, reporting Covid-19 poses many challenges for peace journalists. One of those challenges involves the language we use.

On Twitter, Peter Moor, an Ulster University (Northern Ireland) student who attended one of my lectures in N.I., asks:
What is your opinion on the using the word ‘crisis’ in ref to Covid-19. Is this word inflammatory/accurate representation of what is going on? What about ‘pandemic’ - is a pandemic naturally a crisis?

Let me start with the easy one—“pandemic.” This is technical epidemiological term employed in a precise way by scientists and health experts. The WHO has labeled this outbreak a pandemic, using scientific data to back up this conclusion. Thus, I think journalists are perfectly justified in using this word to describe what is happening. (For more, see CDC and WHO info on pandemics).

The term “crisis” is stickier.

As peace journalists, we avoid language that is subjective, inflammatory, and sensational, words like “massacre,” “bloody,” and “martyr.” These words usually add no information to a story, and only add fuel to the fire. Such words are highly subjective, reflecting only the journalist’s interpretation of events.

As for “crisis,” which can be defined as “a turning point…or a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person's life” (dictionary.com), the word is certainly subjective since each individual has a different interpretation of what constitutes a crisis. That said, we as journalists can certainly report the interpretations of public health experts who have labeled Covid-19 a crisis. Since they are the experts, it seems to me we are safe in using the word since that’s what the experts unanimously believe. In this instance, “crisis” is neither sensational nor inflammatory since it’s not adding fuel to the fire, exacerbating the situation, or frightening people unnecessarily.

Finally, as our perceptive student Peter Moor points out, one can reasonably conclude that a pandemic declaration automatically qualifies an outbreak as a crisis.

For more about PJ and Covid-19, see the lead article in the April Peace Journalist magazine (details below in previous post).

READ MORE -

When billionaires are willing to sacrifice human beings for the sake of economy ..

As coronavirus spreads, the rich are buying lavish bunkers to escape the virus. This one in Germany is spread over 76 acres. 

Pic reproduced from -- Los Angeles Times  

Let’s be very clear. As Robert Reich, a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and the ex-Secretary of Labour in former US President Bill Clinton’s first term put it: “The problem is the virus, not the economy.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi too echoed this when he told G-20 leaders to put human beings first, and then look at economic targets.

But as the world grapples to contain the spread of the deadly coronavirus pandemic, the voice to sacrifice people – especially grand-parents – for the sake of the economy, is growing. In an interview with Fox News, Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick, said that grandparents should be willing to die for the sake of America’s economy, and for the sake of younger generation. He said people should be smart to survive, but wanted people to return to work. However, at no stage in the course of his interview did he say that he being a grandfather himself, with six grand children, is willing to sacrifice his life. Obviously he thinks he is smart enough. And of course we know the ultra-rich as a class are smart to always maintain a physical distance from the rest of the society. Sales of bunkers with special air-filtration systems, escape tunnels and assured food supplies for one year are going up.      

And if you think Dan Patrick is alone in carrying such repugnant views, just hold on. US billionaire Tom Golisano told the news agency Bloomberg: “The damages of keeping the economy closed as it is could be worse than losing a few more people.” At a time when number of people testing positive is increasing in a geometric proportion, crossing 82,000 in the US (as on Mar 27 morning), and the number of those succumbing to the virus are steadily growing, billionaires are instead busy raising concern over dwindling profits and therefore the urgent need to restart the businesses. With nearly half the global population under a virtual house arrest, with industries having pulled down shutters, and with international and domestic travel at a standstill, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial Rethinking the Coronavirus Shutdown wrote: “no society can safeguard public health for long at the cost of its economic health.”      

If you’re still not shocked, take a look at what columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in New York Times: “Let many of us get the coronavirus, recover and get back to work – while doing our utmost to protect those most vulnerable to being killed by it.” As if human lives don’t matter, and the death rate from Coronavirus infection is nothing more than a set of statistics, like the way policy makers view farmer suicides in India, another advocate of ‘choose the economy’ refrain, another US billionaire, Dick Kovacevich, was quoted as saying: “We’ll gradually bring those people back and see what happens. Some of them will get sick, some may even die, I don’t know.”

The US President Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday: “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. At the end of the 15 day period, we will make a decision as to which way we want to go.” This was before the infection rate zoomed in America. Far away in Brazil, the far-right President Jair Bolsonaro calls the coronavirus outbreak as a ‘little flu” and thinks the media is ‘tricking’ people of the severity of the crisis primarily to topple his government. He is not in favour of a lockdown in his country.

With such insensitive responses pouring in from the rich and mighty if you are wondering what kind of a 

society we are living in, where economics takes precedence over what might turn out to be gravest of human tragedies, let me tell you it has historically been more or less like this. When the British government asked the then Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell, to explain the reasons behind millions of people (3 to 4 million) who perished in the Bengal Famine in 1943, the Viceroy wrote back saying that these poverty-stricken people in any case would have died. As we all know, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s seminal work later had shown that there was no shortfall in food production in 1943 and the resulting famine was the outcome of British government’s deliberate policy of diverting food elsewhere. But instead of accepting the blame for depriving the poor of food, Winston Churchill is reported to have shifted the blame for the famine to poor Indians, saying they were "breeding like rabbits." Much earlier, at the time of the Irish Famine between 1845 and 1849, during which time an estimated one million people died of starvation and another one million migrated, the deaths from starvation were perhaps nothing more than a collateral damage. 

At the 150^thcommemoration of the Irish Famine at Cork in Ireland, I vividly recall the mayor of the city in his opening remarks saying what kind of society existed in Ireland at that time when people were dying of hunger from the failure of the staple potato crop, devastated by potato blight disease, the Colonial masters were busy loading ships with corn to be carried to Britain. From the starvation deaths to the pandemics – including the Spanish Flu in 1918 which killed roughly 20 to 25 million people – many political economists view it as a subjugation of the ordinary people by a small section of the elite.

At these pressing times, Robert Reich finds it ‘morally reprehensible’ on how corporations are exploiting the crisis. The US Senator Bernie Sanders said “When we say it’s time to provide health care to our people, we’re told we can’t afford it.” But when the stock markets feel jittery, there is no shortage of money. Out from the hat the US government pulls out $1.5 trillion to calm investor’s worries. This is true globally. Hopefully, when everything calms down, the world may see a behavioural change as well as encounter a dramatic change in economic thinking.

Nevertheless, saner voices dominate. The global response to combating the pandemic is on right track -- limiting the spread. India’s response with a nationwide three-week lockdown is a step ahead of the international curve, and rightly so. After all, if you survive the crisis you can always rebuild the economy. #

In America, economy first. The Tribune. April 1, 2020

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/in-america-economy-first-63839?fbclid=IwAR0lBeOCa4dEoXVRrAfsrop_P_ZjBHxTNZyeA3fHoaXkJm-PvESeRRQhcPU

READ MORE - When billionaires are willing to sacrifice human beings for the sake of economy ..