This is the third Daily Dawg entry this week about a case in California. The court held that the school missed the boat on its Child Find duty as I explained on Monday.  One reason this happened is because of the misunderstanding in the school about LRE.  We discussed that yesterday. All of what we have told you about so far occurred in the student’s sophomore year of high school.  Today we focus on what happened in the student’s junior and senior years of high school. 

For those two years the student was placed by the parent in a residential facility that offered no educational services. Instead, the facility sent its residents to the local public school. This student was assigned to general classes with no IEP, and a minimal 504 plan. And guess what?  She attended that school for two years and did well.  The court concluded that this showed that the student did not need specially designed instruction (AKA “special ed”). 

This is the rare case that makes a deep dive into “educational need.”  When we say that a student “needs” special education, we are saying that the student’s disability requires a special kind of instruction. It requires changes in the content, the methodology, or the delivery of instruction.  The residential facility did provide “academic support” which involved structure, study periods, and planning.  Is that “special education”?  Is it “specially designed instruction”? The court said no:

…nothing in the record suggests that Ms. Johnston provided instruction that adapted the content, methodology, or delivery of N.N.’s general education curriculum. 

The Court agrees with the District that the support Ms. Johnston provided to N.N. resembles the kind of support a parent provides for a child at home.

Well…that’s the kind of support WE WISH every parent would provide at home.

Not every hearing officer or court would analyze the situation in this much detail.  But this opinion is firmly grounded in the law. We toss around the term “educational need” a lot. This case tells us what that term really means.  It means that the student’s disability requires changes in what or how the student is taught. 

It's N.N. v. Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District, decided by the federal court for the Northern District of California on August 4, 2022. 

DAWG BONE: “SPECIAL ED” MEANS ADAPTATIONS IN CONTENT, METHODOLOGY OR DELIVERY OF INSTRUCTION DUE TO A DISABILITY.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow:  continuing my travels and work as a teacher’s aide….

Today we’re taking a second look at the California case we reviewed on Monday.  You may recall that the court held that creating a 504 plan for a student did not satisfy the district’s Child Find duty.  If the Child Find duty kicks in, there is no substitute for an IDEA evaluation. 

Today I want to address one of the rationales offered by the school for why it wanted to try 504 accommodations first.  In the spring semester the school psych said that he did not refer the student for an IDEA evaluation “in the spirit of trying to be least restrictive as possible.”  

Is 504 “less restrictive” than IDEA?  No.  Serving the student in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is about a placement decision—what instructional arrangement will be the LRE for this student?  We should seek a less restrictive setting for both 504 and IDEA students, but we shouldn’t even be thinking about LRE until we have 1) evaluated; 2) determined eligibility; and 3) developed a plan.  Then, and only then, do we turn our attention to the LRE in which that plan can be implemented.  So the idea that 504 is somehow “less restrictive” than IDEA has no basis in the law.

It may be a good idea to pursue a 504 plan when considering a major life activity that would not require “specially designed instruction.”  For example, wheelchair-bound students need some accommodations, but would not usually need any form of special instruction. 

If the major life activity under consideration affects learning, any decision not to do an IDEA evaluation should be supported by Prior Written Notice that lays out the basis for the decision and the parent’s right to challenge it. The Procedural Safeguards document should be provided as well.

It's N.N. v. Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District, decided by the federal court for the Northern District of California on August 4, 2022.  We have one more point to make about this case, so tune in tomorrow.

DAWG BONE: “LESS RESTRICTIVE” IS ABOUT PLACEMENT, AND ONLY ABOUT PLACEMENT.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: and yet, the student was not eligible….

We’re using Toolbox Tuesdays to review the updated Q and A from the Department of Education about the discipline of students with disabilities. Today: Section E about the Special Circumstances offenses.

In the Toolbox, Special Circumstances are covered by Tool #5. This Tool empowers campus administrators to order the immediate removal of a student if the student commits one of the three “special circumstances” offenses on school campus or at a school sponsored activity. The three are: 1) possession, use, sale, or the solicitation of the sale of drugs; 2) possession of a weapon; or 3) the infliction of serious bodily injury. 

The Q and A reminds us that even in a Tool #5 case, we must convene an ARD meeting to conduct a manifestation determination.  This may come as a surprise to some, seeing as how the outcome of the MDR does not determine the placement. If the student has committed a “special circumstances” offense, the student will remain in an IAES (Interim Alternative Educational Setting) for up to 45 school days. The administrator assigns the student to an IAES; the ARD determines what the IAES will be (usually it’s the DAEP), and the student remains in that placement regardless of the outcome of the MDR. That’s why these three offenses are “special.”

So why are we required to do an MDR at all?  The Q and A does not address that question, but my view has always been that the MDR will influence a number of things. Where will the student be served?  What changes, if any, are necessary at the IAES to make sure the student is served appropriately?  Moreover, Tool #5 requires “as appropriate” an FBA and a BIP.  The MDR will provide useful information to help the district develop a BIP or revise the existing one in an effort to make sure this particular kind of behavior does not recur. 

The Q and A also addresses how Tool #5 intersects with the duty to do a risk or threat assessment.  Key Quotes:

Under IDEA, the procedural safeguards and right to FAPE for a child with a disability must be protected throughout any threat or risk assessment process, including the provision of services during any removals beyond 10 cumulative school days in a school year. 

Where appropriate, the LEA can ensure that the school personnel conducting the threat or risk assessment have access to, and are coordinating with, the child’s IEP Team.

Texas law requires a threat assessment when a student uses or possesses a weapon at school.  So add that to your list of things to do when you use Tool #5 for weapons possession.

DAWG BONE: EVEN IF THE OFFENSE IS “SPECIAL” WE NEED AN ARD TO DO AN MDR. 

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: a common misconception….

The student had reached 10^th grade as a general education student with no 504 or IDEA plans in place.  Then the grades went down and the student starting seeing a therapist for her anxiety and depression. The mother asked the school for help.  She sent the school a note from a doctor suggesting that the anxiety was “significant enough that it might require special accommodations in her educational program.”

How would you advise the mother?  Start with a 504 plan, and see how it goes?  That’s what the California district did, and it turned out to be a mistake.  The school psych advised the parent that we should “start with the 504 plan but to be aware that special education support may be necessary down the road.”  He discussed special education services, but did not provide a copy of the state’s Procedural Safeguards document.

In November, the district developed a 504 plan noting that the student’s disability was anxiety. The plan noted also that “anxiety limits learning.” If things had improved after that, we would not be talking about this case. But they did not.  Many teachers reported that the student failed to turn in work and often walked out of class for extended periods of time.  By February, the student was vaping, smoking pot and drinking alcohol and her highest grade was a D.  The 504 plan was not working.  Near the end of April the mother learned from a special education attorney that she could ask for a special education evaluation. She did. The district did the evaluation and then determined that the student was not eligible.

A federal court in California has held that this was a Child Find violation.  The court held that the student’s anxiety, depression, and declining grades were sufficient to create a suspicion that the student might need special education.  The court noted that a 504 plan simply does not cut it:

However, adopting a 504 plan and implementing accommodations does not satisfy a school district’s obligations to conduct a special education assessment under the IDEA. 

This case is an excellent illustration of why your 504 eligibility determinations should begin with this question: What is the “major life activity” we think is adversely impacted by a physical or mental impairment?  In other words: what is the MLA we are concerned about?  If the answer is “learning” or any of its first cousins (reading, thinking, concentrating) then we should 1) talk to the parents about IDEA; 2) provide the Procedural Safeguards document; and 3) either offer to do the IDEA evaluation, or provide Prior Written Notice explaining why we choose not to do so. 

This does not mean that every child who is brought to your attention should be evaluated under IDEA.  IDEA evaluations are triggered by a suspicion of a disability along with a suspicion of a need for changes in what or how the student is taught.  A PWN explaining that we do not currently suspect the need for special education is often the right decision. If PWN is provided, along with the Procedural Safeguards, the district has satisfied its Child Find obligation.

Let’s remember that “learning” is the province of IDEA.  Section 504 is an excellent vehicle for addressing other major life activities, but if the MLA of concern is “learning” we should be thinking about an IDEA evaluation, and we should be transparent with the parent in our decision making. Failure to do so can be construed as a Child Find violation.  Notice that the 504 plan itself in this case indicated a concern over “learning.”

This case was not about dyslexia, but the analysis of the court illustrates precisely why Texas has changed its tune in how we serve students who may have dyslexia. If you have a suspicion of a physical or mental impairment (anxiety, dyslexia) that substantially limits the student in the major life activity of learning, we should be offering the parent an IDEA evaluation.  This court could not have said it more plainly: a 504 plan does not satisfy your Child Find obligation.

It's N.N. v. Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District, decided by the federal court for the Northern District of California on August 4, 2022. We will have more to say about this case later this week.

DAWG BONE: REPEAT AFTER ME: A 504 PLAN DOES NOT SATISFY YOUR IDEA CHILD FIND DUTY.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!!

I’m continuing to recount my adventures from 25 years ago when I took some time off from the law firm and volunteered to work as a teacher’s aide in various districts across the state.  Presidio was memorable. 

All I knew about Presidio before I got there was that it was often cited during the weather portion of the evening news as “our nation’s hot spot.” Presidio frequently recorded temperatures that were the highest in the country.  As I drove to this small town on the Rio Grande I noticed the English language radio stations all fading away. Then most of the Spanish language stations faded out as well. This place is remote.

There were not a lot of lodging options in Presidio so it was a blessing that high school principal Ted Purcell offered to put me up in his garage apartment.  Little did I know at the time that Ted and his daughter, Molly (a future superintendent) would turn out to be longtime friends. 

One day that week I went to the elementary campus in Candelaria which was even more remote.  It was as close to a one-room schoolhouse as I had ever seen and the students were delighted to have a visitor.  There was a small footbridge that took you right into Mexico.  You could walk from Texas to Mexico and back in five minutes. You could play catch with a frisbee from one country to another. I read on Wikipedia that this bridge no longer exists.  That’s not surprising.

The students were bright-eyed and struck me as eager to learn. The things that were going on in Presidio, and even in Candelaria, were the same as the things I’d seen in all the other districts I had visited—teachers teaching the same curriculum, kids being kids. But there was a definite sense in Presidio of being a long way from the mainstream.  I remember one of the teachers telling me what it was like to take the students to an out-of-town event and how many of them had to be instructed on how to order food at McDonald’s. This was a new experience for them.

It was a week that brought home how diverse Texas is. The high school in Presidio was new, well maintained, and nice looking, but the facilities were nothing like what I had seen in Keller or Leander.  The library, the science lab, the gym—just not the same.  And yet our state holds all students to the same academic standards without genuinely addressing the obvious disparity in wealth.  If students are to have an equal opportunity to get a good education, money needs to pour into the poorer parts of the state.  

The Comptroller reports that the 2023 legislative session will open up with a budget surplus of $27 billion. Let’s hope a huge chunk of that goes to our public schools.

DAWG BONE: “ROBIN HOOD” DOESN’T SEEM TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ITS GOAL.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Good for those Aggies.  TAMU has established a four-year program for “young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who have exited high school.”  They call it the Aggie ACHIEVE program (Academic Courses in Higher Inclusive Education and Vocational Experiences).   The students reside in residence halls on the main campus in College Station and have access to all campus-related activities. Those who graduate receive a Certificate in Interdisciplinary Studies. 

It's good to learn that one of our state’s leading universities has invested in such a program.  I’m guessing that public school counselors and transition coordinators are well aware of the Aggie ACHIEVE program.  But I did not know about it until I read the court’s opinion in Doe v. Texas A&M University. 

It’s a Title IX case and a Section 504 case based on student-to-student sexual activity.  The plaintiffs are the parents of an Aggie ACHIEVE student with Down Syndrome. They allege that their daughter was sexually assaulted by another ACHIEVE student.  The suit claims that TAMU should be held liable for this because it “created a heightened risk” that the student would be assaulted.

That “heightened risk” terminology may sound familiar to regular Daily Dawg readers.  On Monday of this week I told you about a case from Cypress-Fairbanks ISD where the plaintiff alleged a similar theory.  There seems to be a trend in the caselaw to pursue two kinds of Title IX claims in student-to-student cases. The traditional approach is to base the suit on how the school responded to an assault after it occurred. Did the school know about it?  Was its response so lame as to be “deliberately indifferent”? 

“Heightened risk” cases take a different approach, focusing instead on what happened before the assault occurred.  Under this theory the plaintiff alleges that the school should be liable for not preventing an occurrence that it should have seen coming. 

In this federal court opinion the court notes that our 5^th Circuit has not recognized “heightened risk” as a viable theory of Title IX liability. On the other hand, neither has the 5^th Circuit ruled it out. The court then proceeds to analyze the allegations in this suit, and it concludes that, even if “heightened risk” is a viable legal theory, the facts alleged here would not be sufficient to make a “heightened risk” case:

Plaintiffs do not allege that TAMU staff received reports of sexual misconduct committed by Aggie ACHIEVE students, that TAMU failed to address or actively concealed reports of sexual misconduct committed by Aggie ACHIEVE students, or that TAMU received reports of sexual misconduct committed by [this particular student’s] assailants.

While the Title IX claims were tossed out, the case will proceed with allegations of disability-based discrimination. There is a factual dispute between the parties as to whether or not the plaintiffs requested disability-based accommodations. At this stage of the proceedings, however, the court does not sort out such factual issues. Instead, the court looks solely at the allegations in the suit. Those allegations plausibly allege that the plaintiffs asked for accommodations and were given none. So the case proceeds on that basis.

It's Doe v. Texas A&M University, decided by the federal court for the Southern District of Texas on October 6, 2022.  It’s cited at 2022 WL 5250294.

DAWG BONE: TWO THEORIES WITH TITLE IX: DID YOU CREATE A HEIGHTENED RISK? AND HOW DID YOU RESPOND AFTER THE FACT?

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Presidio ISD….

The Commissioner’s decision in Parent v. Cypress-Fairbanks ISD is another one in which the Commissioner holds that he lacks jurisdiction to hear the parent’s appeal. That part of the decision is not newsworthy or interesting. But the decision highlights an obscure statute that I want to call your attention to.

This was a complaint that arose from an injury that the student suffered on the school playground. The parent believed that the school should be held responsible for this because the school never developed a seizure treatment plan for this student.  It turns out we have a statute in the Education Code that addresses seizure management.  However, it does not require a school to create such a plan.

Section 38.032 of the T.E.C. allows for parents to “seek care for the student’s seizures” while the student is at school.” But it’s up to the parents to start this process by “submitting to the school district at which the student is enrolled a copy of a seizure management and treatment plan developed by the student’s parent or guardian and the physician responsible for the student’s seizure treatment.” 

The parent in this case did not submit such a plan to the district.  Therefore, there could be no violation of 38.032 by the district. Case dismissed.

The Code does require school staff to be trained about seizures.  Section 38.033 of the Code requires nurses to complete an online course regarding seizure management.  School employees whose duties “include regular contact with students” must also complete an online course to raise awareness about seizure recognition. This section does impose a duty on the school to make sure that staff are properly trained, but there is no duty to create a seizure treatment plan. That’s up to the parents and their doctor. They can then share it with the school to ensure that the child is served properly.

It's Parent v. Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, Docket No. 044-R10-06-2022, decided by the Commissioner on October 12, 2022.

DAWG BONE: RESPOND TO A SEIZURE TREATMENT PLAN, BUT DON’T CREATE ONE.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: the Aggie ACHIEVE program ends up in litigation….

We’re using our Toolbox Tuesdays to review the updated Q and A from the Department of Education regarding the disciplinary options for students with disabilities. This week we are looking at Section D in the Q and A which is all about Interim Alternative Educational Settings (IAES). 

What is an IAES?  Question D-1 tells us that it is:

An appropriate setting determined by the child’s IEP Team or a hearing officer in which the child is placed for no more than 45 school days. This setting enables the child to continue to receive educational services so as to enable them to participate in the general education curriculum (although in another setting) and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the IEP. As appropriate, the setting includes a functional behavioral assessment (FBA), and behavior intervention services and modifications to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur.

In Toolbox terminology, an IAES comes up when the school uses Tool #4, Tool #5, Tool #6 or Tool #8. 

*Tool #4 would involve a hearing officer or court ordering a student to an IAES upon request for an expedited hearing by the school.  When using Tools #5, #6 or #8, however, it’s the IEP Team (ARD) that selects the IAES for a particular student.

*Tool #5 would involve a campus administrator ordering the removal of a student to an IAES due to a “special circumstances” offense (drugs, weapons, serious bodily injury).

*Tool #6 would involve the selection of an IAES by the IEP Team (ARD) after a student has committed a violation of the Code of Conduct that was not a manifestation of disability.  This is not limited to 45 school days, but can be “for the same duration” that would be applied to a general education student.

*Tool #8 involves a short term assignment of a student after the 10-day “FAPE-Free Zone” days are exhausted. As the Q and A tell us “During any subsequent days of removal, the public agency must provide services and may do so in an IAES.”

The IAES must be designed to “enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum” and “to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s IEP.”   Like most things in IDEA-land, this decision has to be based on the student’s unique situation and the services called for in the IEP.  Members of an ARD Committee should not choose an IAES without first reviewing the student’s IEP to ensure that the student’s annual goals will still be attainable while the student is served in the IAES. 

Does your DAEP meet that standard?  If not, you may need to bolster or support the DAEP to make sure it will enable student progress.

The Q and A does not rule out the use of the home as an IAES, but it is strongly discouraged, and it seems clear that if used at all, it should be very short term. The Q and A does note that “Virtual home instruction or hybrid instruction could be additional options” for the ARD to consider, but the document includes this reminder:

SEAs and LEAs should be cautious about excluding a child with a disability from the regular educational program to provide virtual instruction for the sole purpose of responding to a child’s behavior. Removing a child from the regular education program without ensuring behavioral supports have been made available throughout a continuum of placements, including in a regular education setting, could result in an overly restrictive placement and denial of FAPE.

DAWG BONE: BOTTOM LINE IS THE DUTY TO ADDRESS THE BEHAVIOR SO IT DOES NOT RECUR.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: a look at an obscure statute in the Texas Education  Code….

Welcome back to work, Daily Dawg Readers!  I hope the Thanksgiving holiday was enjoyable for you. Now the quick sprint to the next break.  And we’ve got some interesting legal developments to share with you during these next few weeks. 

Title IX coordinators will want to spend some time studying the 5^th Circuit’s recent decision in a nasty student-to-student sexual harassment case.  Two overall lessons emerge.  The first is familiar: Document. Document. Document.  The second lesson is to conduct your own investigation and not be overly reliant on how law enforcement handles the situation.

The student sued the district under Title IX alleging that the district was deliberately indifferent in two ways: first, to the “heightened risk” of sexual assault that she faced; and second, in the way the district responded to the sexual assault she suffered.

As to the heightened risk theory, both the district court and the 5^th Circuit granted a Summary Judgment in favor of the school district.  The student alleged that the district fell short on Title IX compliance, failed to train the staff, and had a long history of inaction in the face of dating violence and sexual assault among students.  All of this, she alleged, created a “heightened risk” that she would be the victim of a sexual assault.  The court disagreed, holding that the plaintiff has to connect the dots more directly.  The court held that the plaintiff “does not connect this failure to the District’s knowledge about her in particular.”  Key Quote:

…assorted incidents of sexual misconduct involving neither the Title IX victim nor the aggressor are generally insufficient to give a school district actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s assault.

However, the Circuit Court denied the district’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the other theory.  This was about the aftermath to the student’s assault.  The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the district responded to the plaintiff’s situation with deliberate indifference.  The school concluded that the sexual encounter between the two students was consensual, although it “went too far.”  It sure did. The girl, 14-years old, had serious physical injuries that led to two surgeries.  

The District Attorney did not prosecute the case and the court quoted the note from the sergeant in the Sheriff’s office that explained why:

[b]ecause the act was consensual between the complainant and suspect, and the fact that the affirmative defense to prosecution applies in this case, criminal charges were not accepted. The suspect did not use duress, coercion, or threats. The suspect is not a registered sex offender and the sexual acts were consensual and the age difference is not more than three years.

The school cited the D.A.’s decision to bolster its conclusion that this was a consensual sexual encounter rather than an assault.  But the court compared the alleged facts in this suit with several other student-to-student cases.  In all of the other cases there was interaction between the public school and law enforcement along with documentation of the school’s independent efforts to ferret out the truth.  But in the facts alleged here, the court noted that there was “virtually no documentation” of an investigation by the school.  Moreover, the court cautioned school officials not to rely too much on a D.A.s decision not to prosecute:

Different legal standards apply to criminal prosecutions and educational discipline, and Title IX requires more than parroting a prosecutorial decision.

The case is a long way from being over, but this published decision is a reminder of some of the basics of Title IX.  Document things carefully and thoroughly.  Interact with law enforcement as appropriate, but apply your school’s standards to the situation rather than the criminal law standards.  Doing those things not only helps out in the event of litigation—more importantly, it also helps protect students from sexual assault.

It’s Roe v. Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, decided by the 5^th Circuit on November 14, 2022 and published at 2022 WL 16918818, 

DAWG BONE: DOCUMENT. DOCUMENT. DOCUMENT. I BET YOU’VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!!

Next week is Thanksgiving and I know that means that many of you will be taking the entire week off. So no Daily Dawg next week. After today, the next Daily Dawg will be Monday, November 28.

As for today I continue my memories of my adventures of 25 years ago when I took some time off from the law firm and volunteered to work as a teacher’s aide in various districts. Today we travel to Keller ISD, and then to Hallsville ISD

I had looked forward to my time in Keller because I had asked the superintendent, Charles Bradberry, to let me work with a coach. Enough of these classrooms—let me hang out with the boys in the locker room! It was late October and the weather was glorious. Just right for outdoor activity in the fresh air and sunshine. I anticipated getting to know something about the football team as it prepared for next week’s game. I studied Texas Football magazine to be conversant on the competition in Keller’s UIL District.

So I was shocked when Charles assigned me to Phyllis Scott, the girls’ athletic coordinator. I’m embarrassed to let you know that it had never occurred to me that coaches came in two genders and I should have been more specific with my request. It’s not that I was unaware of girls’ sports This was 1997 after all, and Title IX was already 25 years old. It’s just that I assumed that Charles would know what I meant when I said “Can you put me with a coach?” I meant jockstraps and such. Memories of high school basketball.

I did not file a grievance over my assignment. I had advised many school employees of the superintendent’s authority to assign and reassign. Moreover I was embarrassed to reveal my prejudice about what kind of coach I got to work with.

Phyllis was great that week. I helped with basketball practice and softball. They had a fundraising event while I was there that involved the softball team. I got a chance to bat…which was yet another embarrassment. Most of you know that I’m a big baseball fan (HOW BOUT THOSE ASTROS!!) but I never could hit the ball. And I couldn’t hit those fast softballs that whizzed past me. Lawyering started to look OK again. This teacher aide thing was getting to be a problem.

The highlight of my week in Hallsville was when the history teacher allowed me to present a lesson. I had a blast doing this. I got the lyrics to “We Didn’t Start the Fire” printed out and had the kids read them as we listened to Billy Joel. Then we went through this Baby Boomer anthem and all of its historical references. Some of them they knew about. Many they did not. I pointed out how the song literally goes year by year starting in about 1949. Lots of pop culture in that song (Doris Day, Johnny Ray, Marilyn Monroe, Chubby Checker) but also lots of history (Dien Bien Phu, Suez Canal, thalidomide, and “JFK blown away, what else do I have to say”).

It was good to be a teacher for a short while. When the students are engaged, it can be fun. It’s a lot easier to keep them engaged while listening to an upbeat song with interesting lyrics. I realized this was not a true depiction of the daily life of a teacher.

Here’s hoping you have a restful and enjoyable Thanksgiving week, full of family, football, turkey and pumpkin pie. Or pecan for those of you so inclined. We make no judgments about this.

DAWG BONE: GOBBLE! GOBBLE!! GOBBLE !!!

Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.