EDMS 550 - What Is Wrong With HTML?

I have no idea if HTML has any shortcomings or if there any issues with using HTML. If there are, I am sure I will learn about them in my next EDMS 550 class.

EDMS 550 - Report finds blogs are on the decline...

A study by the Pew Research Center finds that blogs are declining in popularity due to social media networks like Facebook and Twitter. Typical of me to get involved with a technology ten years after it was popular.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/technology/internet/21blog.html?_r=1&ref=technology

EDMS 550 - Creative Commons Picture

This photo montage of Over-the-Rhine (Cincinnati, OH) is the work of Wholtone. The author released this work into the public domain granting anyone the right to use the work without any conditions. The photo was obtained through a Google search using the Creative Commons licenses. The photo can be accessed via the link commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Over-the-Rhin....

EDMS 550 - Legal Concerns

I have a few concerns regarding potential legal issues when I think about my future in education as a teacher My primary legal concern involves students making false accusations, of any kind, against me. Typically I see these as "he said...she said" situations where the teacher has no real solid defense. Another legal concern I have involves violence and physical confrontations with students. These include situations where a student attacks me or I am in the position of trying to break up a fight between students. Any physical contact between a student and a teacher would seem to invite potential legal issues. Other legal concerns I have are related to student rights as determined by IEPs, Section 504, and other laws granting certain rights and privileges to students.  The concerns regarding these issues center on my ability to adequately provide the necessary modifications and accommodations to students as specified by IEPs and other legal documents.

EDMS 550 - Legal Brief Presentation

http://prezi.com/s6l6vqlrisy3/edms-550-legal-brief/

EDMS 550 - Legal Brief

LEGAL BRIEF

Citation: Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564  (1972)

Topic:  Procedural due process

Issue: Does a non-tenured professor have rights to procedural due process, as granted by the Fourteenth Amendment, after employment at a university has been terminated?

Facts:  Mr. Roth was hired in 1968 by Wisconsin State University–Oshkosh as a non-tenured professor of political science for one academic year. After Mr. Roth completed the academic year for which he was hired, the university did not rehire him for the next academic year. Mr. Roth brought legal action alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment Rights were deprived on two grounds. First, Mr. Roth claimed the university did not rehire him because he criticized administrators at the university during his year of employment. Second, Mr. Roth claimed the university was either required to provide him a reason for not rehiring him or was required to hold a hearing with Mr. Roth prior to deciding not to retain him. A district court granted summary judgment on the procedural due process issue and remanded the case to the Supreme Court.

Findings: The Supreme Court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment did not entitle Mr. Roth to an explanation from the university or to a hearing regarding his employment with the university.

Rationale:  The Fourteenth Amendment provides rights to due process for instances in which “liberty” or “property” interests are infringed. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Roth’s “liberty” interests were not infringed because the university, in deciding not to rehire Mr. Roth, did nothing to harm or prevent him from future employment opportunities. Mr. Roth’s inability to successfully prove the university did not rehire him because of critical remarks he made about the university influenced the conclusion by the Supreme Court that Mr. Roth’s right to free speech had not been deprived. The Supreme Court also ruled Mr. Roth’s “property” interests were not infringed because the university created his employment and the terms of his employment provided no benefit other than employment for one academic year. Since Mr. Roth was employed for the full academic year, his “property” interests to employment at the university were not deprived. The Supreme Court referenced a state law providing for protections for professors employed at state universities. The state law provided due process protections for tenured professors. Mr. Roth, a non-tenured professor, was not entitled to the same protections afforded tenured professors. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Roth had no recourse, via a hearing or receiving explanations, against the university.

Implications: Several cases have decided issues of procedural due process and the decisions have varied depending on the specific circumstances of each case. The Court did address and define terms such as “liberty” and “property” interests as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bibliography:  http://supreme.justia.com/us/408/564/case.html