Support File for ELCC Standard 6

A building-level education leader applies knowledge that promotes the success of

every student by understanding, responding to, advocating for student learning,
and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context
through advocating for school students, families, and caregivers; acting to influence
local, district, state, and national decisions affecting student learning in a school
environment; and anticipating and assessing emerging trends and initiatives in
order to adapt school-based leadership strategies.

Standard Artifact/Activit
Element y

Reflection

Source
(Course)

6.1, 6.2,
6.3

An analysis of Huron Valleys

current budget as well as
recommendations for future budget
planning
This paper focuses on the history of
Proposal A, the pros and cons, as well
as my opinions on school funding
Analysis of NJ vs. TLO and the
implications the decision had on
public schools
This paper outlines how I would deal
with a sensitive school issue as the
school administrator
Analysis regarding a First
Amendment legal issue in a public
school
Conducted a two year study of the
effectiveness of PLCs at Gretchko
Elementary
A discussion regarding a failed
millage proposal in the Huron Valley
School District
A look at the facts and underlying
issues regarding the State of
Michigans proposal to improve
Detroit Public Schools

EA 741

Budget Analysis &

Recommendation
Paper
*Artifact 1

6.1, 6.2,
6.3

Proposal A Paper

6.1, 6.2,
6.3

Supreme Court
Case Analysis

6.1, 6.2,
6.3

Administrator
Response Case
Study
Case Study
Reflection

6.1, 6.2,
6.3

*Artifact 2

*Artifact 3

6.1, 6.2,
6.3

Action Research
Project

6.1, 6.2

Issue Analysis
Paper

6.1, 6.2,
6.3

Article Review

*Artifacts are labeled and listed below.

EA 741

EA 742

EA 742

EA 742

EA 747, 749,
750, & 751
EA 748

EA 748

Artifact 1

Budget Recommendations for the Huron Valley School District

Gregory D. Ristau
Oakland University

Abstract
This paper examines the Huron Valley School District budget for the 2015-2016 school year.
With a focus on the process as well as the budget itself, this paper also provides
recommendations that could assist the Huron Valley School District in planning for the 20162017 budget and beyond. Using Frederick M. Hess and Eric Osbergs book, Stretching the
School Dollar as the primary reference, four cost saving initiatives are suggested that have the
potential to provide financial relief for future school years. These initiatives include; raising
teacher pay while instituting differential and merit pay, computing per-unit costs of various
services, increasing class sizes, and complementing teacher-led instruction with instructional
technology. Although school districts continue to struggle with making cuts and changes in
todays difficult economic times, the combination of declining enrollment and the increased cost
of running a district has forced the hand of many school boards. While there are no easy
solutions, the intent of this paper is to help Huron Valley get started in the right direction.

Budget Recommendations for the Huron Valley School District

Background Analysis
The Huron Valley School District is primarily located in western Oakland County,
Michigan. It provides educational services to families from the Village of Milford, Commerce,
Highland, White Lake, Brighton, and Milford Townships. Covering one hundred seven square
miles, Huron Valley Schools is home to approximately nine thousand, five hundred students, six
hundred teachers, and fourteen hundred staff members in sixteen different buildings. About
twenty four percent of the student population receives free and reduced lunch services. With
students ranging in age from pre-school to post-secondary, Huron Valley provides a wide range
of academic programming. With a six percent decline in enrollment since 2009-10, Huron
Valley Schools has had to find creative solutions to continue to offer the same quality education
and programs that students, staff, and members of the community have come to expect.
Huron Valleys budget development process seems to be very similar to that of other
school districts. Having to determine a budget by the end of June while not knowing what the
state budget will be until the end of October, provides unique challenges that are common for
many Michigan school districts. Huron Valley starts their budget process in early November and
continues to work on it until mid June. This includes developing preliminary budget projections,
informing and gathering input, developing recommendations, and discussing budget
recommendations. While most of the actual process takes place between January and June,
Huron Valley begins during the month of November looking at actual numbers and comparing
them to the budget that was previously created. They are able to do this once the state has

determined their budget for the year. Although the numbers are clearer at this point, they must
continue to monitor and adjust as the state continues to evaluate their budget, and student
enrollment counts are determined in the district. When all is said and done, Huron Valley is able
to complete their process and submit the following years budget to the state before the deadline
at the end of June.
In terms of involving community members, staff, and other stakeholders, Huron Valley
should look for ways to better include these groups in the process. In interviewing the districts
supervisor of finance, Geoffrey VanGoethem, it was determined that a board sub-committee on
finance was responsible for budget planning and adjustments throughout the year. Although
community members were allowed time for public comment at board meetings, these were
typically only entered into record as decisions had already been made. The lone exception
seemed to be when input was gathered by stakeholders that would be directly affected by
reductions. An example of this would be gathering input from staff and families of a school that
was being considered for repurposing. It is our opinion that involving stakeholders in the budget
process would help garner support for budget decisions and could also create a platform for
community members to offer their suggestions for helping the district to increase revenue or
reduce costs.
Huron Valleys ability to communicate and provide access to information pertaining to
the budget and budget recommendations is a strength that our company identified. This was
evident through the Budget and Salary/Compensation Transparency Reporting tab on the district
website, a posted calendar of meeting dates for the Board of Education, and a new initiative that
includes mailing informational brochures directly to community residents. This was a creative

decision aimed at reaching an aging population in Huron Valley that does not rely on technology
to stay up to date on current happenings in the district.
Another determination that came from meeting with Geoffrey VanGoethem, supervisor of
finance, was that Huron Valleys budget is designed to support the districts strategic plan and
other current goals and initiatives. As student learning is the top priority, the majority of funding
is budgeted for each of the schools. Although this is a strong show of support for education in
Huron Valley, basic funding continues to be based primarily on student counts and not the needs
of a building. Therefore schools that may require more funding for student success, must make
decisions based on the number students in their building. This can make it difficult for certain
buildings to continue keeping student learning as their top priority.
Huron Valley has continued to excel despite being one of the lowest funded districts in
Oakland County. Students continue to meet or exceed state results on standardized tests, eighty
three percent of their graduates pursue higher education, and extra-curricular teams and clubs
annually receive state and national recognition. In addition to these accolades, both high schools
in the district and all three middle schools are fully accredited by the North Central Association.
Huron Valley also continues to provide quality auxiliary services such as transportation, food
services, custodial and maintenance, athletics, and fine arts programming. All of these are points
of pride for Huron Valley, especially since its per-pupil funding level in 2014-15 was only
$7,126.
Budget Recommendations
According to Hess and Osberg (2010), there are many creative ways that school districts
can stretch a budget to better serve their students. This has never been more important for school

districts across the state of Michigan, and this is especially true for Huron Valley Schools. Over
the past three school years, Huron Valleys total expenditures have surpassed their total revenues.
This includes a shortfall of almost 2.5 million dollars for the current school year, and a projected
deficit of almost 5 million dollars for the 2016-17 school year. While most districts look to cut
employees or close underutilized buildings, Hess and Osberg (2010) contend that there are many
more creative options that districts can consider. After examining Huron Valleys current budget
and practices, our company believes there are four different initiatives that could help decrease
the expected budget shortfall for the upcoming school year.
The first proposed initiative recommended for Huron Valley is to, Raise teacher pay and
institute differential and merit pay (Hess & Osberg, 2010, p.144). Although easier said than
done, as this entails a complete overhaul to the current teacher contract, Hess and Osberg (2010)
argue that the step and lane way of compensation is a thing of the past. Huron Valley currently
pays teachers based on years of service and levels of degrees obtained. Hess and Osberg (2010)
believe that there is no evidence that suggests that teachers with higher degrees or more years of
service perform better than newer teachers with a bachelors diploma. Our recommendation
would be to have district leaders meet with union representatives to begin discussing how an
overhaul to the current system could actually save the district money, while increasing pay for
teachers regardless of how long they have been teaching. Districts should invest in what they
actually need: teachers of subjects and grades who are scarce and in demand and teachers who
demonstrate results (Hess & Osberg, 2010, p.145). They also contend that districts struggle to
retain good teachers when they are paying them as much as ineffective ones (Hess & Osberg,
2010). With eighty-five percent of the budget going toward employees, it is our opinion that
Huron Valley should rethink how they can better invest this large amount of their budget.

In order to better implement the first initiative, our second recommendation for Huron
Valley Schools is to, Compute per-unit costs of various services (Hess & Osberg, 2010, p.75).
This practice is not something typically done by districts, as it requires financial analysis at the
building and/or classroom level with the goal of determining the cost of services that students
actually receive (Hess & Osberg, 2010). It also brings into question the topic of adequate
funding for students. During our interview with Geoffrey VanGoethem, supervisor of finance in
Huron Valley, we learned that eighty-five percent of the district budget is reserved for its
employees. This includes salary and benefits. Currently, all schools in Huron Valley are funded
based on the number of students that attend that school and staffing is determined based on a
class size formula. In other words, the same funding formula is applied despite the individual
needs of the different schools and its students. Hess and Osberg (2010) suggest taking the main
cost drivers and dividing those amongst the courses and students. This practice would give
Huron Valley a better sense of what they are spending per student for things such as math,
football, band, or any other subject and extracurricular activity. This would not only allow the
district to analyze spending, it would give them the opportunity to avoid simply cutting offerings
to save money. Understanding the per-unit cost would allow Huron Valley to look at alternate
ways to offer the same programming, while reducing the cost that it currently takes to do so.
Our third recommended initiative is typically not a popular one amongst most teachers in
any district. Despite that fact, Huron Valley should consider an Increase in class size (Hess &
Osberg, 2010, p.126). Over the course of fifty years beginning in 1955, student-teacher ratios
decreased from 26.9 to 15.6 (Hess & Osberg, 2010). In the 1970s and 1980s alone, this practice
accounted for an almost 22 billion dollar increase in instructional spending (Hess & Osberg,
2010). And despite that fact that teachers and parents favor the practice, research has not
supported a significant correlation to smaller class sizes and student achievement (Hess &

Osberg, 2010). Therefore we would recommend that Huron Valley examine the benefits of
increasing class sizes beginning with the third grade. We recommend starting with third grade
and leaving kindergarten through second alone because of the unique needs of younger students,
and the heavy emphasis on math and literacy at those grade levels. This initiative has the
potential to support our first recommendation of increasing teacher pay too. The funds saved
through staff reductions with increased class size, could be used for differentiated and merit pay.
We also believe that teachers are more likely to support increased class sizes, knowing that
compensation levels would be higher as well.
The final initiative we are recommending for Huron Valley is to, Complement teacherled instruction with instructional technology (Hess & Osberg, 2010, p.136). With student
learning as a top district priority, as well as the need to reduce expenditures, this initiative can
assist the district in achieving both of these goals. Implementing this initiative would change
current teaching practices, improving student learning and saving the district money in the
process. In addition to providing students with individualized learning plans that address their
needs, the potential savings from a hybrid model could also be used to support the previous
initiative of increasing teacher pay. While supplementing traditional classroom structures with
technology would lead to a reduction in staffing, there is a potential for annual savings too.
Normally teacher lay-offs vary in cost savings from year to year. Lay-offs one year could change
and require new hires the following year. This model has the potential to create some
consistency when it comes to staffing without adding to the budget either. Hess and Osberg
(2010) suggest that the reduction in staff would offset the initial costs of implementing this
initiative. This would allow Huron Valley to make these changes without adding to their current
expenditures that already exceed their declining revenues.

Conclusion
In these difficult economic times, we believe that schools need to think outside of the
box. While closing schools and reducing staff seem to be easy and effective, the ripple effect can
have a lasting impact on the community for years to come. Huron Valley is at a tipping point in
terms of future financial planning. The current trend of decreased revenue and increased
expenditures appears likely to continue, threatening the fund balance and forcing district leaders
to make tough decisions. It is our hope at Financial Consultants Inc., that Huron Valley will
consider our recommendations and invest some of their resources into determining whether or
not they would be a good fit for the district moving forward. These initiatives have the potential
to not only save money, but also improve student learning. We also believe that these initiatives
will provide annual savings for Huron Valley, helping to stabilize the budget for years to come.
As stated earlier, change is never easy, but the time has come for creative action to take place.

References
Hess, F.M. & Osberg, E. (2010). Stretching the school dollar: How schools and districts can
save money while serving students best. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Artifact 2

Proposal A; Looking at the Past, Present, and Future of School Funding

Gregory D. Ristau
Oakland University

Abstract
This paper focuses on Proposal A as it relates to school funding in the state of Michigan. It
begins by looking at the proposal through a historical lens, focusing on the when, the why, and
the how behind Proposal As creation and adoption. Using William J. Prices book, Taking the
Mystery out of Michigan School Finance: A Handbook for Understanding State Funding Policy
for Michigan Public School Districts, and C. Philip Kearney and Michael F. Addonizios A
Primer on Michigan School Finance as the primary references, it not only looks at the history of
Proposal A, but also discusses the pros and cons of it as well. While it may be easier to take the
side that opposes Proposal A being a public school employee, there are many merits or benefits
of the current system. After examining both sides of the issue, this paper concludes with my own
opinions about Proposal A, including some tweaks that I believe could make it a school funding
system that more of the public could support in the years ahead.

Proposal A; Looking at the Past, Present, and Future of School Funding

History
In the years prior to the 1994 reforms, under Michigans equal yield approach, local
property taxes provided better than 60 percent of the revenues needed to fund the public schools
(Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p. 7). Under this system, the state struggled to fund school
districts with any sort of consistency or equality. As property taxes increased, senior citizens and
families from lower socio-economic backgrounds were also finding it difficult to keep up. In
addition to this, by 1993 many of the wealthier school districts in Michigan were spending three
times as much per pupil as the poorest districts (Dwyer, 2014). Something had to change to
alleviate the burden of soaring property taxes and to decrease the disparity in school funding
among Michigan districts.
The first shoe to drop was in the summer of 1993 when Michigan became the second
state in the country that would not be looking at the local property tax as a major source of
school funding revenue (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p. 2). According to Dwyer (2014), an
initial 20% property tax cut proposed by the Governor at the time John Engler was amended by
then Senator Debbie Stabenow. Her suggestion of a 100% cut was quickly passed through the
Senate and House, and was immediately signed by Governor Engler (Dwyer, 2014). In one fell
swoop, $6.5 billion in school taxes disappeared for the 1994-95 school year (Dwyer, 2014). Due
to this radical shift in property tax collection, the state was left trying to figure out how they were
going to fund public schools.

Shortly after instituting these extreme tax cuts, the state decided it would leave the fate of
public school funding up to the voters. Left with a choice between an increase in income tax
versus an increase in the general sales tax, the voters decided on the latter by a margin of 69-31
(Kearney & Addonizio, 2002). This decision was on the ballot as Proposal A, and resulted in a
4% increase in revenue for public school funding in 1994-95 (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002). A
$6.5 billion cut in 1993-94 became a $10.5 billion fund for the following school year (Kearney &
Addonizio, 2002). This was in large part due to the 2% increase in sales tax and a partial
restoration of the property tax that the state levied at 6 mills (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002).
These taxes, along with other state taxes such as tobacco, income, business, real estate, and
casino made up the State School Aid Fund (SSAF) (Price 2015). Revenue from the lottery was
also included in the SSAF which serves as the basis for the school funding system we have today
in Michigan.
Proposal A was not only designed to reduce property taxes for the citizens of Michigan, it
was also meant to increase the state share of total public school revenue, assure all districts a
minimum level of per pupil revenue, and achieve equity for public school students in our state
(Kearney & Addonizio, 2002). It was more than just saving money, it was about adequacy and
equity (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002). One way the state hoped to achieve this was by moving
from an equal yield formula to a foundation plan as the core of state school funding (Kearney
& Addonizio, 2002, p. 42). This plan created a formula designed to assure that each district
would receive the same minimum level of funding per pupil, with the goal of closing the gap
between the wealthier school districts and the poorer ones. Zip codes and property values were
no longer going to determine funding for Michigan students.
Where Proposal A has Succeeded

According to Kearney and Addonizio (2002), there is little argument that Proposal A has
certainly achieved its first two objectives: to reduce property taxes and to increase the state share
of total K-12 revenue. Total property taxes dropped by 26 percent, with about a 32 percent
decrease for homeowners and a 13 percent decrease for businesses (Kearney & Addonizio,
2002). This was welcome relief, considering that Michigan property taxes were 33 percent
higher per capita than the U.S. average (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p. 57). In addition to the
tax cuts, Proposal A also limited annual assessment increase for each property parcel to 5% or
inflation rate, whichever is less (LaFaive & McHugh, 2014, p.3). This was another benefit for
property owners in the state. When comparing our state sales tax to the U.S. average, Michigan
was 30 percent lower per capita than the national average (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p.57).
This was a fairly decent trade off considering the sales tax only increased by 2 percent. In terms
of the state share of school funding revenue, Kearney and Addonizio (2002) point out that
Proposal A made Michigan one of the top states in the country when comparing the state share of
public school funding. In seven years, Michigan increased its share from 31 percent in 1993-94
to 75 percent in 2000-01 (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p.38).
In terms of the other two objectives; assuring local districts a minimum level of per pupil
funding and achieving equity for pupils, there is debate as to whether Proposal A has succeeded.
Supporters contend that equity and adequacy have been substantially improved because of
Proposal A (Price, 2015, p.6). In fact, Price (2015) points out that adequacy levels were as low
as $2,762 in 1993-94, but are now $7,391 for the current school year. This was not the case
before Proposal A, as local school districts relied heavily on local property taxes instead of a
foundation allowance. Because of this, places with high-value property could spend a lot on
schools. Those without it could not (Dwyer, 2014, para. 6). This not only affected adequacy, it
caused issues with equity too. However, Proposal A was able to address the equity issue. Price

(2015) wrote that the funding gap between the minimum and maximum grants in 1994-95 was
$2,300, and that gap has decreased to $778 for the 2015-16 school year. Although these changes
did not occur overnight, it is fair to say that the playing field is more level today than it was over
20 years ago. And according to LaFaive and McHugh (2014), when comparing Michigan to
other states, our public schools are very well funded.
Proposal As Shortcomings
Despite the success that Proposal A has demonstrated over the past twenty years, there
are many detractors who oppose this method for funding public schools. The first issue that
critics bring up is Proposal As reliance on the state sales tax because it relies on the states
volatile economy. Slumps in sales taxes due to the recession and unemployment have meant
less money for schools (Dawsey, 2014, p.3). In other words, when the citizens of Michigan fail
to spend money in our state our schools suffer. Another issue that critics have with Proposal A
has to do with the per pupil funding allowance. Although it has narrowed the gap in terms of
equity and adequacy, declining enrollments across the state have led to a decline in state funding
(Dawsey, 2014). The per pupil foundation allowance has put too much weight on student counts,
tightening school budgets throughout the state. In addition to this, school districts are fearful of
an ever growing charter school system that competes for public school students, further
threatening the loss of more per pupil income. Supporters argue that competition will make
schools work harder to be successful and retain students, but a now uncapped charter school
system continues to wreak havoc on public schools. A third concern with Proposal A is the fact
that it funds schools with what are known as sin taxes. These are the revenues generated by
taxing casinos, alcohol, and cigarette sales. And although it is not a tax, some citizens take issue
with the funding that comes from lottery revenues as the lottery can be viewed as a form of

gambling. Despite the fact that this is not one of the major critiques of Proposal A, ethical
concerns have been raised with funding our childrens schools with money raised from taxing the
bad habits of Michigan citizens. A final concern with Proposal A focuses on the fact that it
was never designed to fund large-scale school reforms, which carry additional, sometimes
expensive price tags (Dawsey, 2014, p.3). A school districts general fund barely covers the day
to day, year to year operating expenses needed to educate its students. Therefore, at the end of
the day, school budgets rarely have the money they need to upgrade technology, replace buses, or
renovate buildings. Buying new property and building new schools becomes an issue as well.
Supporters of Proposal A will argue that districts can levy a non-homestead millage, sinking
funds, and bond proposals, but these initiatives rely on voter support within the community.
Much like the sales tax, in tough economic times it is difficult to garner community support
when it comes to passing a millage or bond proposal. When these initiatives do not pass, it puts
further strain on an already shrinking budget. And when technology and facilities cannot be
upgraded, or cuts are made to programming, schools once again find themselves losing students
and the per pupil funding tied to their enrollment.
Conclusion
It is hard to argue with the numbers that show the funding gaps closing for adequacy and
equity, but I agree that tweaks can be made to assure that all students have the same access to a
quality education. Three ways that I believe the state could do this includes: returning the cap on
charter schools in Michigan, amending the hold harmless provision, and providing assistance
to local school districts when they bring a millage or bond proposal to their voters.
Charter schools continue to pilfer students from our public schools. As these schools pop
up left and right, parents options for educating their children increase. While it is easy to point

fingers at decreasing test scores, we must remember that public schools are doing much more
today while receiving fewer dollars to do it. Not to mention that parents also pull their children
for a variety of other reasons other than academic achievement. In my opinion, returning a cap
on charter schools would help to limit the number of students that leave public schools. By
doing so, public schools would be able to retain that per pupil foundation, and they could use that
money to help make the improvements necessary for success.
While I firmly believe that the hold harmless provision was necessary when Proposal A
was passed, it is a major source of contention in todays funding discussion. While it does not
make sense to ask those districts to fall back to the minimum foundation allowance, changes
could be made that would allow other districts not in the hold harmless category to levy
additional mills that could go toward their general fund. While I know that this does not
guarantee that voters would endorse such a proposal in these other school districts, I believe all
districts should at least have the same opportunities to supplement their foundation allowances.
This also gives more local control back to these districts, as they can decide when to ask voters
for support and the citizens can decide whether or not they agree to do so.
Finally, our current economic climate has not allowed the state to significantly increase
the basic foundation allowance for public schools. Until Michigans economy can rebound and
bring with it increased revenue for school funding, the state must look for other ways to support
local districts. In my opinion, lending political and possibly financial support during bond and
millage proposals could be crucial. Campaigns can be expensive, and schools do not have the
necessary budget to help them succeed. Any financial support the state could lend during a
district campaign, would save the district money that could be used in other ways for the
students. And if our local senators or representatives publicly backed the proposals, voters may

be more likely to see the merits of passing these initiatives. Currently, districts must do this on
their own and hope that they have the clout, skills, and finances necessary to succeed.
After a productive and tumultuous history that has spanned over two decades, Proposal A
seems likely to stay put. While I can sympathize with those who want to eliminate Proposal A, I
believe there are too many benefits to ignore. I agree that it is far from perfect, but I am not sure
that another school funding system is out there that could do a better job in Michigans current
economic climate.

References
Dawsey, C.P. (2014, April 29). A brief history of Proposal A, or how we got here. Bridge
Magazine. Retrieved from http://bridgemi.com/2014/04/a-brief-history-of-proposal-a-orhow-we-got-here/
Dwyer, D. (2014, June 9). The day Michigan killed public schools (and then created the system
we have today). State of Opportunity: Michigan Radio. Retrieved from
http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/day-michigan-killed-public-schools-andthen-created-system-we-have-today
Kearney, C.P. & Addonizio, M.F. (2002). A primer on Michigan school finance (4th ed.).
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
LaFaive, M.D. & McHugh, J. (2014, March 14). Happy anniversary Proposal A. Mackinac
Center for Public Policy. Retrieved from https://www.mackinac.org/19897
Price, W.J. (2015). Taking the mystery out of Michigan school finance: A handbook for
understanding state funding policy for Michigan public school districts (5th ed.).
Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Publications.

Artifact 3
Greg Ristau
EA 742 Moodle Assignment #1
Student and Teacher Rights Case Study #2

1) What do you think resulted from the lawsuit (i.e., who won)? Why?
Although a lawsuit was not mentioned in the second case study, I would have to say that
the school district and consequently the school principal were the winners in this case. As we
discussed in class on Wednesday night, the first amendment provides a lot of protection for
students, especially when adults are the targets and school disruptions are not clearly evident.
The school district did their due diligence however, and was able to link Justins infractions to
violations of the School District Discipline Code. In doing so, the district was able to justify the
discipline that was chosen for Justins consequences and subsequently sent a strong message to
the student body that this type of behavior would not be tolerated.
2) Did the school/administrator make any critical mistakes in this case? What?
In my opinion, the school district and the principal did not make any critical mistakes.
Although Principal Erickson was upset, he did not rush to judgment. He inquired about possible
recourse with local police and included district administrators in the process. Despite the fact
that other students also created fake profiles and students were viewing these pages at school,
Erickson and district administrators stayed the course and more than a week passed before Justin
and his mother were called in for a meeting. Instead of overreacting and turning this into a witch
hunt, school administrators tried to limit access to the pages, so that they could minimize the

disruptions at school. In the process, they were able to gather information that they would need
to ultimately determine that a meeting was needed with Justin and his mother.

3) If you were the administrator in the building, would you have handled the matter any
differently? How?
I think that the principal and the school district handled this case properly and showed
there were violations of the School District Discipline Code. The only other actions that I might
have taken had I been the administrator would have included possibly interviewing students to
gather more information about the sites and their creators, and working to hold the other students
accountable for their actions. Interviewing students may have provided more information that
could have strengthened the case and connected more students to the infractions. Although
Justin created the original profile in this case, it seems as if he was the scapegoat in all of this. If
other students created profiles, and those profiles were more vulgar and offensive, I believe that
those students should have been held accountable as well. I am also curious as to whether or not
Justin had a history of discipline issues. The school district handed down several severe
consequences, especially if this was his first offense. It would be easier for me to agree or
disagree with his consequences if I had this information to review as well.