Resilience through Adversity: A narrative case study of students' experiences of expulsion from school

Expulsion from school is life changing. This single event can alter the trajectory of a student's life--for better or for worse. How life changes is unique for each individual student. Risk and protective factors that impact an individual student's resilience determine the level of positive or negative outcomes experienced as a result of expulsion. Educators have the opportunity to take advantage of this disruption in students' education to improve the trajectory of students' lives. However, without thoughtful intervention from caring educators, this interruption in students' education may have an irreparable destructive impact on students' future. The purpose of this study was to understand the expulsion experience from the point of view of the student in order to represent this critical stakeholder group in future policy and program development, implementation, and decision-making. Students' narratives are a means for members of the educational community to access students' experiences and perceptions in order to understand the impact of expulsion on students' lives. Students' perspectives are presented through thick description in this narrative case study. The experience of these eight students is evidence that expulsion can change students' lives in a positive way. Knowing this, responsible educators must develop interventions for expelled students that channel the positive life-changing potential of this experience. Educators must develop interventions focused on bringing forth protective factors that are documented to increase resilience and to make students less susceptible to the risks inherent in removing them from school. Recommendations for educators and policy-makers are presented to assist educators in preventing expulsion and improving educational and socio-emotional outcomes for expelled students.

Comprehensive Validation Of A Measure Of Student School Engagement: A Pilot Study Of Middle School Students

Although it may sound reasonable that American education continues to be more effective at sending high school students to college, in a study conducted in 2009, The Council of the Great City Schools states that "slightly more than half of entering ninth grade students arrive performing below grade level in reading and math, while one in five entering ninth grade students is more than two years behind grade level...[and] 25% received support in the form of remedial literacy instruction or interventions" (Council of the Great City Schools, 2009). Students are distracted with technology (Lei & Zhao, 2005), family (Xu & Corno, 2003), medical illnesses (Nielson, 2009), learning disabilities and perhaps the most detrimental to academic success, the very lack of interest in school (Ruch, 1963). In a Johns Hopkins research study, Building a Graduation Nation - Colorado (Balfanz, 2008), warning signs were apparent years before the student dropped out of high school. The ninth grade was often referenced as a critical point that indicated success or failure to graduate high school. The research conducted by Johns Hopkins illustrates the problem: students who become disengaged from school have a much greater chance of dropping out of high school and not graduating. The first purpose of this study was to compare different measurement models of the Student School Engagement (SSE) using Factor Analysis to verify model fit with student engagement. The second purpose was to determine the extent to which the SSE instrument measures student school engagement by investigating convergent validity (via the SSE and Appleton, Christenson, Kim and Reschly's instrument and Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel and Paris's instrument), discriminant validity (via Huebner's Student Life Satisfaction Survey) and criterion-related validity (via the sub-latent variables of Aspirations, Belonging and Productivity and student outcome measures such as achievement, attendance and discipline). Discriminant validity was established between the SSE and the Appleton, Christenson, Kim and Reschly's model and Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel and Paris's (2005) Student Engagement Instruments (SEI). When confirming discriminant validity, the SSE's correlations were weak and statistically not significant, thus establishing discriminant validity with the SLSS. Criterion-related validity was established through structural equation modeling when the SSE was found to be a significant predictor of student outcome measures when both risk score and CSAP scores were used. The third purpose of this study was to assess the factorial invariance of the SSE instrument across gender to ensure the instrument is measuring the intended construct across different groups. Conclusively, configural, weak and metric invariances were established for the SSE as a non-significant change in chi-square indicating that all parameters including the error variances were invariant across groups of gender. Engagement is not a clearly defined psychological construct; it requires more research in order to fully comprehend its complexity. Hopefully, with parental and teacher involvement and a sense of community, student engagement can be nurtured to result in a meaningful attachment to school and academic success.

In-House Risk

Over the last thirty years or so, as the number of in-house counsel rose and their role increased in scope and prominence, increased attention has been given the various challenges these lawyers face under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, from figuring out who is the client the in-house lawyer represents, to navigating conflicts of interest, maintaining independence, and engaging in a multijurisdictional practice of law. Less attention, to date, has been given to business risk assessment, perhaps in part because that function appears to be part of in-house counsel’s role as a business person rather than as a lawyer. Overlooking the role of in-house counsel in assessing risk, however, is a risky proposition, because risk assessment constitutes for some in-house counsel a significant aspect of their role, a role that in turn informs and shapes how in-house counsel perform other more overtly legal tasks. For example, wearing her hat as General Counsel, a lawyer for the entity-client may opine and explain issues of compliance with the law. Wearing her hat as the Chief Legal Officer, however, the same lawyer may now be called upon as a member of business management to participate in the decision whether to comply with the law. After outlining some of the traditional challenges faced by in-house counsel under the Rules, this short essay explores risk assessment by in-house counsel and its impact on their role and function under the Rules. It argues that the key to in-house lawyers’ successful navigation of multiple roles, and, in particular, to their effective assessment of business risk is keen awareness of the various hats they are called upon to wear. Navigating these various roles may not be easy for lawyers, whose training and habits of mind often teach them to zoom in on legal risks to the exclusion of business risks. Indeed, law schools continue to teach law students “to think like a lawyer” and law firms, the historical breeding grounds for in-house counsel positions, in a world of increased specialization master the narrower contemplation of legal questions. Yet the present and future of in-house counsel practice demand of its practitioners the careful and gradual coming to terms, buildup and mastery of business risk analysis skills, alongside the cultivation of traditional legal risk analysis tools.