Strengthening Cross-Identity Collaborations and Relationships: A Critical Conversation

Cross-identity collaborations operate within the larger societal context of whiteness and other forms of domination. Thus, individual actors within cross-identity collaborations must navigate this context and their collaborations with consideration for the interpersonal/social, functional, material, and emotional risks and precautions. Given historical patterns of domination, exploitation, and oppression, caution is understandable and advised, yet can undermine forward progress. In order to productively examine this challenge, this session focuses on cross-identity collaboration among those who engage in the preparation of school leaders, and more specifically, those who prepare school leaders with a central focus on social justice

Constitutional Implications of School Punishment for Cyber Bullying

In this article, we address the scope of student free speech rights as it relates to cyber bullying. We provide a review of legal theories under which school administrators can address cyber bullying while still respecting student free speech rights and the First Amendment. Additionally, we address the jurisdiction of administrators to deal with off-campus bullying conduct

Pathways to the Principalship: An Event History Analysis of the Careers of Teachers With Principal Certification

Utilizing rich data on nearly 11,000 educators over 17 academic years in a highly diverse context, we examine the career paths of teachers to determine whether and when they transition into the principalship. We utilize a variety of event history analyses, including discrete-time hazard modeling, to determine how an individual’s race, gender, and their combination—among other characteristics—contribute to their likelihood of making this transition. We found that inequitable pathways to the principalship are not explained by systematic differences in personal and contextual characteristics along lines of race and gender but rather that the selection of school leaders may be a process influenced by systemic bias

Cyber Bullying and Free Speech: Striking an Age-Appropriate Balance

Cyber bullying has generally been dealt with by the courts using one of two legal analyses: the “true threats” doctrine, or the Tinker substantial disruption test. This law review, the Cleveland State Law Review, recently published Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes: Threat to Student Free Speech (referred to herein as “the Threat to Speech article”), which addressed these two theories, and argued that the current evolution of cyber bullying legislation simply goes too far. For example, Hayward states Anti-cyber bullying laws are the greatest threat to student speech because they seek to censor it anytime it occurs, using “substantial disruption” of school activities as justification and often based only on mere suspicion of potential disruption. The Threat to Speech article advocates greater protection of student speech. While we recognize that any regulation of speech by the state may raise First Amendment concerns, we are not so quick to conclude that cyber bullying regulations “chill student free speech.” Our analysis of the law leads us to the conclusion that school administrators have relatively broad discretion to regulate student speech, provided those regulations either serve legitimate pedagogical ends or protect the rights of other students and the school environment. Indeed, as we will demonstrate below, the evolution of the Supreme Court’s student free speech jurisprudence has followed the trend of granting more and more leeway to administrators. Contrary to the claims in the Threat to Speech article, in our opinion that leeway clearly extends to allowing regulation of speech which originates off campus but has a reasonable likelihood of making its way on campus. We also believe that, in addition to true threats and the Tinker substantial disruption standard described in the Threat to Speech article, school administrators may also regulate student speech consistent with the Court’s holding in Fraser—which set what we refer to as the “fundamental values standard” —and based on the fighting words doctrine

Cyber Bullying and Free Speech: Striking an Age-Appropriate Balance

Cyber bullying has generally been dealt with by the courts using one of two legal analyses: the “true threats” doctrine, or the Tinker substantial disruption test. This law review, the Cleveland State Law Review, recently published Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes: Threat to Student Free Speech (referred to herein as “the Threat to Speech article”), which addressed these two theories, and argued that the current evolution of cyber bullying legislation simply goes too far. For example, Hayward states Anti-cyber bullying laws are the greatest threat to student speech because they seek to censor it anytime it occurs, using “substantial disruption” of school activities as justification and often based only on mere suspicion of potential disruption. The Threat to Speech article advocates greater protection of student speech. While we recognize that any regulation of speech by the state may raise First Amendment concerns, we are not so quick to conclude that cyber bullying regulations “chill student free speech.” Our analysis of the law leads us to the conclusion that school administrators have relatively broad discretion to regulate student speech, provided those regulations either serve legitimate pedagogical ends or protect the rights of other students and the school environment. Indeed, as we will demonstrate below, the evolution of the Supreme Court’s student free speech jurisprudence has followed the trend of granting more and more leeway to administrators. Contrary to the claims in the Threat to Speech article, in our opinion that leeway clearly extends to allowing regulation of speech which originates off campus but has a reasonable likelihood of making its way on campus. We also believe that, in addition to true threats and the Tinker substantial disruption standard described in the Threat to Speech article, school administrators may also regulate student speech consistent with the Court’s holding in Fraser—which set what we refer to as the “fundamental values standard” —and based on the fighting words doctrine

Energy dependence of fission product yields from 235

Under a joint collaboration between TUNL-LANL-LLNL, a set of absolute fission product yield measurements has been performed. The energy dependence of a number of cumulative fission product yields (FPY) have been measured using quasi-monoenergetic neutron beams for three actinide targets, 235U, 238U and 239Pu, between 0.5 and 14.8 MeV. The FPYs were measured by a combination of fission counting using specially designed dual-fission chambers and γ-ray counting. Each dual-fission chamber is a back-to-back ionization chamber encasing an activation target in the center with thin deposits of the same target isotope in each chamber. This method allows for the direct measurement of the total number of fissions in the activation target with no reference to the fission cross-section, thus reducing uncertainties. γ-ray counting of the activation target was performed on well-shielded HPGe detectors over a period of two months post irradiation to properly identify fission products. Reported are absolute cumulative fission product yields for incident neutron energies of 0.5, 1.37, 2.4, 3.6, 4.6, 5.5, 7.5, 8.9 and 14.8 MeV. Preliminary results from thermal irradiations at the MIT research reactor will also be presented and compared to present data and evaluations. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Los Alamos National Security, LLC under contract DE-AC52-06NA25396, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344 and by Duke University and Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory through NNSA Stewardship Science Academic Alliance grant No. DE-FG52-09NA29465, DE-FG52-09NA29448 and Office of Nuclear Physics Grant No. DE-FG02-97ER41033

Effects of rare kidney diseases on kidney failure: a longitudinal analysis of the UK National Registry of Rare Kidney Diseases (RaDaR) cohort

\ua9 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Individuals with rare kidney diseases account for 5–10% of people with chronic kidney disease, but constitute more than 25% of patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. The National Registry of Rare Kidney Diseases (RaDaR) gathers longitudinal data from patients with these conditions, which we used to study disease progression and outcomes of death and kidney failure. Methods: People aged 0–96 years living with 28 types of rare kidney diseases were recruited from 108 UK renal care facilities. The primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of mortality and kidney failure in individuals with rare kidney diseases, which were calculated and compared with that of unselected patients with chronic kidney disease. Cumulative incidence and Kaplan–Meier survival estimates were calculated for the following outcomes: median age at kidney failure; median age at death; time from start of dialysis to death; and time from diagnosis to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) thresholds, allowing calculation of time from last eGFR of 75 mL/min per 1\ub773 m2 or more to first eGFR of less than 30 mL/min per 1\ub773 m2 (the therapeutic trial window). Findings: Between Jan 18, 2010, and July 25, 2022, 27 285 participants were recruited to RaDaR. Median follow-up time from diagnosis was 9\ub76 years (IQR 5\ub79–16\ub77). RaDaR participants had significantly higher 5-year cumulative incidence of kidney failure than 2\ub781 million UK patients with all-cause chronic kidney disease (28% vs 1%; p<0\ub70001), but better survival rates (standardised mortality ratio 0\ub742 [95% CI 0\ub732–0\ub752]; p<0\ub70001). Median age at kidney failure, median age at death, time from start of dialysis to death, time from diagnosis to eGFR thresholds, and therapeutic trial window all varied substantially between rare diseases. Interpretation: Patients with rare kidney diseases differ from the general population of individuals with chronic kidney disease: they have higher 5-year rates of kidney failure but higher survival than other patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3–5, and so are over-represented in the cohort of patients requiring kidney replacement therapy. Addressing unmet therapeutic need for patients with rare kidney diseases could have a large beneficial effect on long-term kidney replacement therapy demand. Funding: RaDaR is funded by the Medical Research Council, Kidney Research UK, Kidney Care UK, and the Polycystic Kidney Disease Charity

Using a Delphi process to determine optimal care for patients with pancreatic cancer

Aim Overall 5-year survival for pancreatic cancer is ~5%. Optimising the care that pancreatic cancer patients receive may be one way of improving outcomes. The objective of this study was to establish components of care which Australian health professionals believe important to optimally manage patients with pancreatic cancer. Methods Using a Delphi process, a multi-disciplinary panel of 250 health professionals were invited to provide a list of factors they considered important for optimal care of pancreatic cancer patients. They were then asked to score and then rescore (from one (no importance/disagree) to 10 (very important/agree) the factors. The mean and coefficient of variation scores were calculated and categorised into three levels of importance. Results Overall 63 (66% of those sent the final questionnaire; 25% of those initially invited) health professionals from 9 disciplines completed the final scoring of 55 statements/factors encompassing themes of presentation/staging, surgery and biliary obstruction, multi-disciplinary team details and oncology. Mean scores ranged from 3.7 to 9.7 with the highest related to communication and patient assessment. There was substantial intra- and inter- disciplinary variation in views about MDT membership and roles. Conclusion Overall the opinions of Australian health professionals reflect international guideline recommended care; however they identified a number of additional factors focusing on where patients should be treated, the importance of clear communication and the need for multi-disciplinary care which were not included in current clinical practice guidelines. Differences in priorities between specialty groups were also identified