A Case of Irony

By Hassenpflug, Ann

Brandt v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago1 decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007 is not just another case about middle school students’ insistence that the U.S. Constitution protects their right to wear their choice of t-shirt. Unlike other recent cases, such as Newsom v. Albemarle2 in the Fourth Circuit and Guiles v. Marineau3 in the Second Circuit, in which federal appellate courts decided that school officials may have violated students’ freedom of speech rights by the restrictions placed on wearing specific messages on their t-shirts, the Seventh Circuit did not find that the school official’s behavior violated Brandt’s speech rights. Brandt offers insight into what students are learning about the ironic purposes and methods of public education. This case began with gifted students’ deliberate engagement in irony. Their original attempt at creativity led to unexpected ironic conduct by the faculty and administration. The federal district and appeals courts’ decisions are themselves full of intended and unintended irony.

Although the gifted eighth graders in Brandt at times seem to behave in ways that make their identification as “gifted” seem ironic, their behavior raises important questions about how public schools are treating gifted students and whether their creative potential is being addressed appropriately and adequately in an era that focuses on curriculum standardization and achievement test scores as major educational goals. The No Child Left Behind Act often overlooked gifted students as school districts endeavored to improve scores of the regular education students.4 Many educators assume that the gifted students can succeed on their own with little guidance. Brandt suggests, however, that the needs of gifted students are not being understood or addressed by schools.

This article begins with a review of the events at the Chicago public school that led to Brandt. A summary of the district and appellate court decisions follows, including the courts’ use of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Bethel v. Fraser,5 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier,6 and Tinker v. Des Moines,7 as well as the courts’ attempts to highlight the various ironic aspects of this case. The students’ behavior will then be analyzed using Joseph Renzulli’s rating scales for identifying gifted and talented students in order to demonstrate how school officials placed in charge of gifted students ironically seemed to have little understanding of gifted behavior. If they had, they would have been able to predict gifted students’ actions and avoid engaging in behaviors likely to provoke inevitable adversarial reaction from gifted students. Finally, recommendations will be offered to prevent other administrators from becoming caught in a tug of war with students over freedom of speech rights.

I. “GIFTIES”

In the spring semester of 2003 Beaubien School held its annual contest for design and selection of the eighth grade’s class t- shirt. Beaubien is a public elementary school in Chicago. Gifted eighth grade students attended Beaubien because that was the school where the regional gifted center was located. Gifted student Michael Brandt’s entry in the contest depicted “a boy giving a thumbs-up signal with one hand. The other arm ends in a handless nub, from which a leash extends to a dog labeled the “Beaubien Bulldog.” One of the eyes in the boy’s abnormally large head is very dilated while his teeth have large gaps between them. He is wearing plaid pants and a t-shirt with the slogan “Beaubien Class of 2003.” The gifted students claimed that they were making fun of themselves by using this ironic image to represent them.8

Brandt’s design was one of approximately thirty entries in the contest. Twenty-seven gifted students in the eighth grade class of ninety-nine students agreed among themselves to vote for Brandt’s design. They assumed that their bloc vote would make his design the winner. To their surprise, the teacher in charge of the contest announced that since the vote was very close, a run-off election among the top three designs would have to be held. Despite the gifted students’ continued use of a bloc vote, Brandt’s design did not prevail in the second election.

Although the gifted students requested an explanation of the run- off system and a copy of the vote tallies, the teacher refused to respond. Consequently, the gifted students decided to print Brandt’s design on t-shirts for themselves. For these t-shirts Brandt added “Gifties 2003″ on the back. When the principal learned of their plan, he refused to allow them to have an alternative t-shirt just for the gifted eighth graders.

The principal warned them that wearing their own t-shirts would lead to punishment because doing so would show disrespect for his authority and offend other students. An assistant principal warned them that they would violate the school district policy prohibiting students from wearing clothes with “inappropriate words or slogans.”9 To prove to the administration that the other students did not oppose the existence of the alternative t-shirt, the gifted students created a petition which they circulated among the eighth graders. The gifted students collected fifty signatures from the other seventy-two eighth graders before teachers warned students that if they signed the petition they would be suspended.

Although the gifted students were prevented from giving the petition to the local school council as they had intended, they did attend the council meeting on February 19, 2003 at the invitation of the principal. Brandt explained that the gifted students barely knew the other students at Beaubien and did not see why they could not have their own t-shirt. They felt that Brandt’s t-shirt represented the gifted students better, and they wanted to share wearing it with their gifted classmates. Brandt also informed the council that the gifted students were perplexed by his design’s loss in the original election and by the school’s refusal to explain the vote tabulation. Despite Brandt’s presentation, the council chose not to overrule the principal.

On April Fool’s Day, approximately two-thirds of the gifted eighth graders wore the t-shirts to school as a joke. The principal informed them that they had violated the disciplinary code by wearing clothing with inappropriate words or slogans. He told the gifted program coordinator to contact their parents about this violation.

The offending students were confined to their homeroom and consequently missed gym, science lab, and computer lab. They were not allowed to mix with other students at lunch and had to cover the shirts when they left their homeroom to go to the restroom. The principal informed the area instructional officer of his concern about possible hostility between the gifted students and the other students as a consequence of the wearing of the “gifties” t-shirt.

Parents of the students complained about the administration’s behavior to the Board of Education and the principal’s supervisors. In response to parent complaints, the Board’s attorneys supposedly informed the parents that the students’ First Amendment freedom of speech rights had been violated.10

Believing that they could legally wear the t-shirts, some of the gifted students wore them again on May 12, 2003. From then until May 23, at least one student wore the t-shirt each day. The school administration punished the offenders by limiting or preventing them from attending labs and gym, and mixing with students in other classes during lunch. Additionally, the administration allegedly accused the students of various minor disciplinary infractions and encouraged teachers and staff members to humiliate the students by giving them assignments appropriate for second or third graders.11

The area instructional officer met with the parents on May 15, 2003 in an effort to resolve the t-shirt problem. It was determined that the students could wear the t-shirt as long as they covered it when they left their classroom to go to other parts of the school.

Additionally between May 19 and May 23, 2003 a Crisis Intervention team met with all the eighth grade classes to discuss the situation. These discussions revealed that the other eighth graders did not care whether the gifted students wore their own t- shirts. Instead, the other students were concerned that the controversy would cause them to lose their year-book, have their class trip cancelled, and negatively impact their graduation events.

After learning of the other students’ reactions, the principal decided that there was no reason to be concerned about safety after all. He finally agreed that the gifted students could wear their “Gifties” t-shirts to school.

After the supposed resolution of the t-shirt controversy, some gifted students claimed that they were still the target of various reprimands and disciplinary actions by the administration. For example, several were prevented from attending the graduation dance. Consequently, they wore buttons with the slogan “Question Authority” to their graduation ceremony where the administration refused to let them participate unless the buttons were removed.

II. DISTRICT COURT OPINIONS

Federal district courts in Illinois addressed the case in 2004 and again in 2006. Brandt is filled with examples of both intended and unintended irony in the behavior of school officials, as well as in the courts’ opinions.12 Judge Amy J. St. Eve, who wrote the federal district court opinion in 2004 used irony in noting, that according to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1996), “[fjor the benefit of those whose eighth-grade education has not provided a sufficient definition, the relevant meaning of the word 'irony' is the 'use of words to express something other than and especially opposite of the literal meaning.'"13

In 2004 the district court dismissed the case because the board of education and school administrators had not violated the students' First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The defendants asserted persuasively that the t-shirt was not protected by the First Amendment since the students only wanted to wear the t-shirt due to it being "silly" and "ironic." Although the students claimed that wearing the t-shirts was a form of protest protected by the First Amendment, the court noted that the students did not originally describe their motivation for wearing the t-shirts as "protest." Instead, it was the irony of the design coupled with the word "Gifties" that appealed to the students and led to their desire to wear the t-shirts.14 Furthermore, although the students claimed that the prohibition of wearing the "Question Authority" buttons at the graduation ceremony was made in retaliation for their wearing the t-shirts, this alleged retaliation could not be used as a separate basis for claiming First Amendment rights violation.15

The court noted that even had it found that wearing the t-shirt was protected speech, the school administrators would still have not violated the students' rights in prohibiting the wearing of the t- shirt.16 The school is a nonpublic forum, and the school administrators had legitimate reasons for believing that the t- shirts would affect the order and discipline of the school as well as ridicule physically disabled students. The court cited Bethel v. Fraser in determining that legitimate pedagogical concerns allowed the administration to prohibit wearing the t-shirts without violating the First Amendment rights of the students.17

According to the 2004 court decision, the students' claim that the administration could not grasp the "humor and satire" of the shirt overlooks the fact that the students could not see the image as others might see it. The students saw "irony" in using what they regarded as a humorous image representing someone who looked not very bright to them in conjunction with the label "Gifties." Although the students may have intended no disrespect to the physically disabled, the administration could see what gifted students ironically could not see: that the image might offend others.18

In the 2006 district court case the students claimed that the First Amendment protected the wearing of the t-shirt as a protest against the flawed t-shirt election process. The students argued that the issue in Brandt was not whether the message on the t-shirt was protected speech, but rather whether the First Amendment protected the expressive conduct of wearing the t-shirts.19 Once again the court sided with the defendants in finding that the Board of Education and administrators had not violated the First Amendment speech rights of the students.

To determine whether the t-shirts had been worn as a protest, the court reviewed the reasons that students had given for wearing the t- shirts. Some student statements indicated that it was worn for irony, not protest. Examples of how wearing the t-shirt demonstrated irony included wearing it on April Fool's Day and using such a "goofy" and "silly" kid to represent gifted eighth graders about to enter high school and young adulthood. Other students did testify, however, that they wore the t-shirts to protest the principal's prohibition against the t-shirts.20

The students' claim that others in the school also understood that the t-shirt was worn in protest did have some supportive evidence. To support their position, the students pointed to the existence of the petition, the gifted program coordinator's interviews of regular education students about the t-shirts, and the punishment given by the administration to those who wore the t- shirt.21

The district court cited Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier in determining that the disruptive potential of the t-shirts justified the administration's prohibition of the t-shirts.22 The image could have been seen as insulting to some students. Moreover, tensions existed between the gifted and regular education students. The other eighth graders feared that their eighth grade graduation events would be cancelled because of the gifted students' behavior. Additionally, since the t-shirt contained references to the school, the t-shirt could be perceived by others as being approved by the administration. Consequently, the administration was justified in determining the acceptability of the t-shirt.

Although Brandt relied on Tinker v. Des Moines to support the gifted students' position, the court thought that Tinker did not prevent school officials from overriding student expression in order to teach "civility and the inculcation of traditional moral, social, and political norms."23 Furthermore, the administration had given the gifted students another venue for expression by suggesting they take their issues to the local school council. Additionally, after the Crisis Intervention Team determined there were no safety concerns, the principal let the students wear the t-shirts without receiving any punishment. Consequently, the court granted the school officials qualified immunity because a reasonable official could not have known "definitively" that the prohibition of the t-shirts would violate the students' First Amendment speech rights.24

III. COURT OF APPEALS OPINION

In February 2007 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to find that the school administration had violated the rights of the students. In the case appealed to the Seventh Circuit the students did not try to claim that the t-shirt itself was protected speech but rather that the wearing of the t-shirt had been a form of protest against an unfair election run by the school.25 However, the court determined that wearing the t-shirt was not protected speech because it conveyed no particular message about ideas or opinions. It was just a means of self-expression, like wearing an earring or expensive clothes.26

Although the appellate court found that protest could be a form of protected expression, it did not find that this protection extended to eighth graders. The court ruled that if administrators have to have their decisions about disciplinary procedures submitted to approval by juries, then their authority would be undermined.27 However, even if the students did have First Amendment speech rights, the administrators did not violate them. The court cleverly determined that the right that the students were asserting by wearing the t-shirts was "the right to an explanation by the school for how the election to pick an official eighth-grade T-shirt was conducted"28 and such a right does not belong to eighth graders. According to the court, even if the school did run a flawed election, the school did not violate any student rights.

Furthermore, the school had not prohibited the protest of the students or their parents because they were given the opportunity to take their complaints to the local school council. The court used Hazelwood to support its position that the administration had legitimate pedagogical reasons for its decisions. The principal had to make decisions as events unfolded. He may not have made the best decisions, but he did not act unreasonably or abuse his authority.29

Ironically, the court refused to accept the school administration's view that the figure on the t-shirt deliberately represented a physically disabled student and was consequently offensive. The court chose to believe that Brandt simply lacked adequate artistic ability.30 However, even if the image was not designed to be offensive to the physically disabled, the administration's belief that it was offensive would have been adequate justification for its prohibition against the wearing of the t-shirt.31

The court noted further irony in the students' attempts to prevent future sharing of the information with their subsequent educational institutions or potential employers given that it was the lawsuit brought by the students and their parents that had made this episode known across the United States. The students had not suffered any lasting effects from the administration's actions. No disciplinary records existed in the students' files, and the district rule related to inappropriate words or slogans had been changed following the t-shirt episode.32 In April 2007 the Seventh Circuit refused Brandt's request for an en banc rehearing of the case.33

IV. IRONIC BEHAVIOR

Although Beaubien contained the Regional Gifted Center, school officials and other personnel seemed to be unaware of the behavioral characteristics of gifted students. Intelligence and achievement test scores may help identify gifted students, but these numbers provide no information about gifted student behaviors and how to address their educational needs. Administrators as well as teachers require additional knowledge about gifted and talented students in order to understand and respond to their behaviors appropriately.

Based on research on gifted and talented students, Joseph Renzulli created "Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students" to help educators more accurately identify and respond to the behaviors of gifted and talented students.34 The Renzulli scales are divided into four parts: learning, motivation, creativity, and leadership. Each part lists and describes eight to ten characteristics which can be rated on a scale of one to four and then tabulated. Using the relevant characteristics from the Renzulli Scales to analyze the school officials' behavior in Brandt suggests further irony in this case. Despite being assigned to work with gifted students, the officials had little understanding of the behavior of gifted and talented students. If they had had more knowledge about gifted and talented students, they might have been able to respond more appropriately in order to prevent the situation from escalating as it did. Part I in the Renzulli framework addresses learning characteristics. The fourth behavior in the list of eight states: "Has rapid insight into cause-effect relationships; tries to discover the how and why of things; asks many provocative questions (as distinct from information or factual questions); wants to know what makes things (or people) 'tick.'"35 Brandt and his fellow "Gifties" clearly demonstrated this behavior in their unsuccessful attempts to uncover how the t-shirt election was conducted by the school officials. Educators knowledgeable about gifted student behavior should have realized that these students would ask questions about how the vote was counted and would not be satisfied until they had all the facts. The students wanted to understand what exactly had occurred, and the officials' refusal to answer the students set the stage for the ensuing conflict. The students demonstrated the sort of critical thinking skills that educators, politicians, and employers continually claim they want schools to develop in students. However, these students learned that their critical thinking ironically only led to evasion by the educators and even to disciplinary actions against them for pursuing their quest for information.

Part II of the scales focuses on motivational characteristics. Several characteristics are of particular relevance to Brandt. The first item in the list of nine characteristics states: "Becomes absorbed and truly involved in certain topics or problems; is persistent in seeking task completion. (It is sometimes difficult to get him or her to move on to another topic.)" Item nine states: "Is quite concerned with right and wrong, good and bad, often evaluates and passes judgment on events, people, and things."36 The events that led to Brandt began in February 2003 and lasted through the rest of the school year. The students persisted in their efforts to wear their t-shirts and to find out how the selection process had been run. They thought that they had been treated unfairly and were not going to accept such treatment. The t-shirt also appears to have had symbolic meaning to the gifted students who felt that they were not treated as part of the school. Their t-shirt symbolized their feeling of alienation. They did not think that they had received justice from the school officials. Their pursuit of fairness led them into the judicial system where their lawsuit was dealt with twice by district federal courts and finally, after four years, by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Item six of the motivational characteristics states: "Is interested in many "adult" problems such as religion, politics, sex, race - more than usual for age level."37 These students asked questions that adult citizens of a democracy should be asking about elections, but the educators (and the courts) apparently thought eighth graders did not have the same rights as adult citizens. Treating gifted and talented eighth graders according to their chronological age rather than their intellectual age may not have been the appropriate reaction considering that the substance of their complaint about an unfair election was legitimate. The gifted students did not regard themselves as children who could or would be silenced by administrative disapproval. They raised adult questions that they thought should be taken seriously. They wanted communication and respect, not reprimands and mandates.

The eighth item states: "Likes to organize and bring structure to things, people, and situations."38 All the gifted students agreed to vote as a bloc in support of Brandt's design in order to win the t- shirt contest. After they lost, the students created a petition for the other eighth graders to sign to show the lack of opposition to the "Gifties" t-shirt. Before teachers stopped this activity, the "Gifties" had gotten signatures from fifty of the seventy-two other eighth graders in their school. When the principal suggested that they take their request for their own t-shirt to the local school council, they appeared and presented their case. The school administration apparently underestimated the ability of the gifted students to stay focused on a goal and to pursue steps to reach that goal.

Part III of the Renzulli Scales addresses creativity characteristics. Item three which states, "[i]s uninhibited in expressing opinion; is sometimes radical and spirited in disagreement; is tenacious”39 certainly describes the behavior of the gifted students during the events of 2003 as well as the subsequent lawsuit. The original design with the ungifted-looking student demonstrates item five: “displays a good deal of intellectual playfulness . . . “and item six: “displays a keen sense of humor and sees humor in situations that may not appear to be humorous to others.”40 Although the gifted students insisted that the t-shirt image was meant to be amusing and ironic, the school officials did not find the image amusing and feared that it would offend other students in the school.

If school officials had known about the tenth item (“Criticizes constructively; is unwilling to accept authoritarian pronouncements without critical examination”),41 they could have predicted how the gifted students would react to being given no explanation about how the votes were counted in the t-shirt election. The officials would also have been able to foresee that prohibiting the wearing of the t- shirt as well as taking disciplinary measures against those who wore it in defiance would exacerbate the conflict, not end it. The “Question Authority” buttons that some students attempted to wear at the graduation ceremony offer additional evidence of the gifted students’ creativity which led to further embarrassment for the school officials and more irony when the authoritarian principal told them to remove the buttons.

The gifted students also exhibited several of the ten items listed in Part IV as leadership characteristics. Item two states “Is self-confident with children his or her own age as well as adults . . . “42 The gifted students did not hesitate to win the support of the other eighth graders in their quest to wear their “Gifties” t- shirt. They certainly stood up to school officials who attempted to prohibit the t-shirts. Item six (“Adapts readily to new situations; is flexible in thought and action and does not seem disturbed when the normal routine is changed”)43 describes the gifted students’ ability to react to the school officials’ continued attempts to thwart the students’ desire to wear their t-shirt. Ironically, the educational leaders in me school definitely seemed disturbed when the normal routine was changed by the students’ attempts to wear their t-shirt.

Item eight (“Tends to dominate others when they are around; generally directs the activity in which he or she is involved”)44 offers additional explanation for the inevitable clash with school officials who believed that their role in dominating the school had been usurped or threatened by the gifted students’ wanting to have their own way. The administration failed to see leadership in the students’ behavior. Instead, the students were treated as troublemakers for disagreeing with the school administration’s view. Ultimately a central office administrator and the Crisis Intervention Team had to function as intermediaries to bring about a resolution in the controversy between the school administration and the gifted students.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Brandt is a lawsuit that could have been avoided if school personnel had been more knowledgeable about the needs and behaviors of gifted students. An obvious recommendation for all school districts wishing to avoid similar situations with gifted students is to provide and require professional development in gifted education not just for teachers of gifted students but also for all site-based school administrators who have direct involvement with gifted students. Coursework on gifted students is seldom included in graduate school preparation for school administrators. Consequently, it is imperative for school districts to see that administrators who work with gifted students and their parents understand the behaviors and needs of this population. Not understanding them can lead to unnecessary adversarial interactions.

School administrators should consider that the gifted students, regardless of their age, believe that the issues they take seriously should be taken seriously by the adults around them. Administrators who fail to acknowledge this do so at their own peril. Authoritarian principals and gifted students are not a winning combination. The students’ attempts to have their issues addressed may seem threatening to an administrator who wants to tell people what to do and how to do it. Even if the rest of the students and teachers in the school passively submit to the administration’s will, gifted students (and their parents) may be determined to set their own agenda and are often not afraid to voice their views. Ironically, the school officials’ demand that students must respect their authority helped encourage the students to do just the opposite.

In districts where the gifted are placed in non-neighborhood schools as part of magnet programs or simply due to space considerations, the students who may be in the building for only a year or two may see no reason to have loyalty to a school where they feel unassimilated and even unwelcome. The administration at Beaubien seemed far more concerned about the feelings of special education students who might have been offended by the “Gifties’ t- shirt than about the feelings of the gifted students who were placed in a school where they felt isolated and alienated. The administration should have worked to integrate the students into the school. Ironically the gifted students on their own apparently made connections with other students as a consequence of the flawed t- shirt election. If the administration had developed strategies to integrate the students into the school, Brandt might not have felt compelled to design the “Gifties” t-shirt. Administrators should demonstrate the ability to work collaboratively with all types of students in a school. Graduate coursework in educational administration increasingly emphasizes the need to work collaboratively with all the adults in the school community, but it is just as important for the administrators to work collaboratively with all the students in a school as well. Administrators should not show favoritism for any particular group but rather demonstrate fairness and consistency in their interactions with students. Student governance structures and procedures need to be created and used to give students an appropriate voice in school activities. Positive leadership experiences will benefit the students as well as prepare them to play an appropriate role in a democratic society.

If school improvement, as well as societal improvement, are going to occur, then critical thinking on the part of students should be encouraged and appreciated by educators. Students need to be seen as capable and responsible members of the learning community. Administrators who value creativity will understand that gifted students are an asset to any school. A culture of inquiry that supports gifted students will benefit all the students and faculty in the school. Change and growth will be possible in that environment.

1. Brandt v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 480 F.3d 460 (7th Or. 2007).

2. Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board, 354 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2003).

3. Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320, 329 (2nd Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3054 (2007).

4. Christine Samuels, States Seen Renewing Focus on Education of Gifted, Education Week, April 11, 2007, at 20.

5. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

6. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

7. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

8. Brandt v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 326 F. Supp. 2d 916, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

9. Id.

10. Id. at 918.

11. Id.

12. Id. at 919.

13. Brandt v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 326 F. Supp. 2d 916, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

14. Id. at 921.

15. Id.

16. Id.

17. Id. at 922.

18. Brandt v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 326 F. Supp. 2d 916, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

19. Id. at 932.

20. Id.

21. Id.

22. Id. at 934.

23. Brandt v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 326 F. Supp. 2d 916, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

24. Id. at 935.

25. Brandt v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 480 F.3d 460, 463 (7th Cir. 2007).

26. Id. at 464.

27. Id. at 466.

28. Id.

29. Id. at 468.

30. Id.

31. Brandt v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 480 F.3d 460, 463 (7th Cir. 2007).

32. Id. at 7.

33. Brandt v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 480 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2007).

34. GARY DAVIS & SYLVIA RIMM, EDUCATION OF THE GIFTED AND TALENTED 113 (5th ed., 2004).

35. Id. at 114.

36. Id. at 115.

37. Id.

38. Id.

39. Id. at 116.

40. GARY DAVIS & SYLVIA RIMM, EDUCATION OF THE GIFTED AND TALENTED 113, 116 (5th ed., 2004).

41. Id.

42. Id. at 117.

43. Id.

44. Id.

ANN HASSENPFLUG, Ph.D.*

* Ann Hassenpflug, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership in the College of Education of the University of Akron.

Copyright Jefferson Law Book Company Jan 2008

(c) 2008 Journal of Law and Education. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.