ILNews

Project PEACE training postponed; no new date announced

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
 This summer's training for Project PEACE - Peaceful Endings through Attorneys, Children, and Education - originally scheduled for July 16-18, has been canceled because of a lack of registrations from teachers. An extended deadline failed to draw any more registrations.

The training might be rescheduled for sometime after the start of the 2007-08 school year. Project PEACE is a peer mediation program implemented by the Indiana Department of Education with support from the Indiana State Bar Association and the Indiana Attorney General's Office.

Because of the decline in interest, the bar association and department of education coordinators are looking at ways to update the training. Among the changes were the length of the program, which traditionally started around noon on the first day, then lasted through noon on a third day with overnight stays in a hotel to accommodate early morning and late night trainings.

Terry Albright, this year's training coordinator on the bar association's side, discussed the issue with others involved in the project, including Gina Woodward, coordinator for the project on the Department of Education's side. They agreed that the declining interest in the training could also be because of increased responsibilities for teachers, especially following No Child Left Behind.

"Teachers are saddled with more and more responsibilities," Albright said. "So there might be less interest for something of this program's character, which is totally voluntary, it doesn't give teachers much extra credit in terms of what they do, and (the program) needs to be carried on through the entire school year."

Albright, who served as president of the Indiana State Bar Association when Project PEACE was first implemented in 1993-94, said, "One of the things we have to assess is 'Has peer mediation as a program for schools run its course?'"

Albright added that schools in other states, such as Pennsylvania, continue to have success with these types of programs.

Due to lack of interest from schools this early in the planning stages, the bar association had not yet asked any attorneys to participate this year.

"We normally try to get schools to sign up and then find attorneys with a background in alternative dispute resolution to be the advisor," Albright said. "We had not reached that point yet. But I would say that earlier in the program, it was more common to see an attorney link up with one of the schools who wanted to have the program even before the school submitted an application."

One of the places on the application is for the name of an attorney to help if the school already has one in mind.

Albright said that training might be conducted during the school year if there is enough interest at a later date. Even if teachers take the time from their teaching schedules for the training, they would still be paid for those days because the training is school-related, which might be more appealing than summer training.

 
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT