{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"55504064","dateCreated":"1343096174","smartDate":"Jul 23, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"LDixon21","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/LDixon21","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55504064"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Students Cyber Bullying and Threats","description":"The new type of bullying may not be a kid who uses his massive size to intimidate others but instead may possibly spread nasty things via the Internet using web logs or through text messaging on cell phones. Courts have found that threats are not protected by a student\u2019s First Amendment right to free speech noted in both cases Lovell v. Poway and Doe v. Pulaski. In the cases of New Jersey v. T.L.O. is still the benchmark for search and seizure. Reasonable suspicion is available to school leaders rather than the more restrictive probable cause. Students should be informed that they have \u201cno expectation of privacy\u201d on school computers. If possible student material should be stored on school hard drives to discourage them from malicious activities. Searching student\u2019s home computers at home are pushing the limits of the Fourth Amendment. Internet speech cannot be punished unless it significantly interferes with a school function, causes a disruption, or interferes with the rights of others. Educational leaders must have \u201cinternet usage policies\u201d, \u201cfiltering software\u201d, and be aware that \u201cfiltering software\u201d is not fool proof. Schools should have every student and parents, if possible, sign the internet safety policies. Most of all do not forget due process when disciplining students for inappropriate use of the internet. More serious infractions may result in long term suspension; this will require a hearing with the Supt or his\/her designee. The Principal may suspend the student up to 10 days immediately, and require them to meet with the Supt prior to them returning to school. This meeting may be the opportunity for a due process hearing for the Supt to determine if long term suspension will be necessary. If long term suspension is necessary, then due process rights and the opportunity for a hearing with the Board of Education must be presented. If a hearing is held with the Board of Education, both parties may be represented by an attorney and the parents\/guardians may choose to have this in open or closed session. All policies, rules, regulations and documentation of the incident must be provided to the parents prior to the hearing with the Board. Both attorneys may request additional information and may call and question witnesses.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"55501338","dateCreated":"1343081890","smartDate":"Jul 23, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"KatikaLovett","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KatikaLovett","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55501338"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Teachers' Rights and the Law","description":"The American educational system is premised on the basis that individual states are responsible for the education of their citizenry and that local communities also have rights and responsibilities in this area. While the courts continue to uphold the right for local communities to shape educational curriculum, they have placed limits on those rights by mandating that curricular decisions (to include or exclude ideas and materials) must be based on appropriate educational pedagogy and not on the ideological or religious tenets of a particular political or religious group. Ever since the \u201cNation at Risk\u201d (1983) Education has been all about reform, reinvention, renewal and revival. Teacher quality is at the forefront. Teachers and Educational Leaders are being held accountable for student achievement.
\n
\nPrincipals of the twenty-first century have the guidance of a line of cases in which the courts, with notable consistency for two decades, have supported the authority of the public schools to control curriculum. Nonetheless, school administrators must realize that censorship of teachers' speech still carries with it the risk of a law suit with the possibility of the assessment of damages should the teacher win. Principals should know and respect teacher's rights. They should approach personnel problems with a spirit of fairness and attempt to resolve them by doing what is in the best interest of the students. Finally, they should recognize potential legal implications and act under the guidance of competent legal counsel before and not wait until after such problems develop. The lessons of the cases reviewed serve as the basis for additional suggestions that follow:
\n
\n\u2022 Be aware that outside of the classroom teachers have First Amendment rights to express opinions about matters of public concern even though those views may be controversial and unpopular. The only justification for interfering or punishing teachers for such speech is material and substantial disruption of the educational process.
\n
\n\u2022 Exercise extreme caution when recommending the release of inferior or otherwise undesirable teachers who at the same time may be engaged in protected speech or other constitutional rights. The evidence documenting the legitimate reasons for the action must convince the courts that those reasons alone would have resulted in the dismissal or other disciplinary action.
\n
\n\u2022 Exercise extreme caution when recommending the release of inferior or otherwise undesirable teachers who at the same time may be engaged in protected speech or other constitutional rights. The evidence documenting the legitimate reasons for the action must convince the courts that those reasons alone would have resulted in the dismissal or other disciplinary action.
\n
\nThe twenty-first century began with public school administrators having broad judicial support for their authority to control the curriculum. IN the near future, there is little indication that this authority will be eroded by elementary and secondary school teachers\u2019 claims of academic freedom. However, few would question the desirability of teacher involvement in curriculum decisions. Communication between principal and teachers about what is taught and how it is taught is essential.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"55501304","dateCreated":"1343081796","smartDate":"Jul 23, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"KatikaLovett","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KatikaLovett","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55501304"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Student Rights","description":"Most schools have student codes of conduct. Generally define the infraction, what the punishment will be and who will administer the punishment. Typically the more serious the punishment the more need there is for complete due process. Minimal due process is the only requirement for minor suspensions (10 days or less). Educational disability also plays into the need for extended due process (manifestation determination hearings etc.). Basic fairness is the typical requirement of all discipline actions.
\n
\nGoss v. Lopez (1975) is the leading case in regards to procedural rights (due process) of students. Established the difference between short and long term suspension (anything less than 10 days would be considered a short term suspension in which minimal due process rights would be afforded). Goss determines that only minimal due process is required for minor infractions. Most schools do not afford an appeal of the disciplinary action for minor infractions of In School Detention or short term suspension (10 days or less). Some schools afford an appeal on even minor infractions; most likely this is not practical in most school settings. Even in the case of minor infractions\/short term suspensions, a letter should be sent home to the parent specifying the act and the punishment
\n
\nTinkers v. Des Moines students do not shed their Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Courts say that \u201cSince schools are \u201ceducating the young for citizenship,\u201d they should protect the \u201cConstitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes\u201d. \u201cTinker\u201d also established that there were exceptions as to what could be allowed with any student conduct that \u201cmaterially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others\u201d. Bethel v. Fraser (1986) case established some parameters with which school administrators must follow: must appeal to the prurient or lustful interest, it must describe sexual conduct in a way that is patently offensive to community standards, and taken as a whole, it must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. \u201cBethel\u201d finally gave the administration a way to offset \u201cTinker\u201d. This case held that administrators did have a way to discipline students who used \u201coffensively lewd and indecent speech\u201d. Heller v. Hodgin (1996) Allowed the suspension of a student who said \u201cI am not a fucking bitch\u201d even though someone else had allegedly called her that name.
\n
\nIn Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) the courts ruled that a \u201ccurricular\u201d newspaper was not a public forum and the school officials were entitled to regulate the contents\u2026in any reasonable manner\u201d. \u201cHazelwood\u201d was the first break through for schools in regulating first amendment rights of students in regards to free speech. The court ruled that administrators had the right to prohibit articles that are \u201cungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences\u201d. Teachers and administrators do not violate first amendment rights by \u201cexercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.\u201d \u201cHazelwood\u201d does not permit educators to censor school sponsored publications unless they have a valid educational purpose. In 2003 the courts found that an Arkansas school district did violate first amendment rights by banning the Harry Potter books because of fear that they might promote disruption, witchcraft and disobedience to parents\u201d. Counts v. Cedarville School Dist. (2003)
\n
\nBased on the cases we have reviewed this week, schools cannot ban student distribution of publications because they advocate a particular religion, political, or social view. However, administrators can establish policies that regulate the time, place, and manner for distributing materials in the schools. As educational leaders, should these such rules be viewpoint neutral and\/or be so restrictive that they prevent the dissemination of student opinions? Administrators should distinguish between what they have authority to do legally and what it is wise to do educationally. For example, Hazelwood allows schools to censor almost all articles in curricular publications. But this, of course, does not mean that censorship is the best way to train students to exercise their First Amendment rights \u201cin a fair and responsible manner."","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"55425310","dateCreated":"1342538786","smartDate":"Jul 17, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"LDixon21","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/LDixon21","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55425310"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Threats by Students, Teachers\u2019 First Amendment Rights","description":"School officials do not have absolute immunity in dealing with student issues. In addition to not having malice or ill will toward the respondents, school board members must be aware of, and act upon, their constituents\u2019 constitutional rights if they are to be exempt under section 1983. If a board member acts from impermissible motives or violates established constitutional rights, then the aggrieved party is entitled to a compensatory award.
\n
\nPickering, Mount Healthy, Givhan and this case establish the conditions under which a public employee may exercise the right to freedom of speech in the work setting. Principals of the twenty-first century have the guidance of a line of cases in which the courts, with notable consistency for two decades, have supported the authority of the public schools to control curriculum. Nonetheless, school administrators must realize that censorship of teachers' speech still carries with it the risk of a law suit with the possibility of the assessment of damages should the teacher win. Principals should know and respect teacher's rights. They should approach personnel problems with a spirit of fairness and attempt to resolve them by doing what is in the best interest of the students. Finally, they should recognize potential legal implications and act under the guidance of competent legal counsel before and not wait until after such problems develop.
\n
\nIn order to be effective, any memorandum must be prepared and sent to the teacher soon after the incident and the subsequent conference occur. Under no circumstances should a memorandum be prepared after the decision to terminate has been made and backdated to reflect the incident upon which the proposed termination will be based. Have the teacher sign to acknowledge receipt of the memorandum without requiring agreement with its contents. Invite a written response and set a specific time for the response to be provided. If the teacher refuses to sign for receipt, have an adult witness sign a copy of the memorandum noting that it was provided the teacher, and indicate the person who provided it and the date provided.
\n
\nAs an educational leader we should understand that in preparing a memorandum, inflammatory words should not be used. Rather than characterize an action as insubordination, the action should be factually described, and the teacher's action referred to as a failure to comply with specific official directives or school board policy. Based Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District, directives given in a memorandum should be positive and specific, and educational jargon should be avoided. The following examples were given for educational leaders, when directing a sometimes tardy teacher to arrive at school on time, state: "You are required to be at school by (a specific time), and you will be expected to have signed in by that time," rather than, "You are required to be at school on time." Instead of directing, "Your lesson plans are due once a week, " one might state, "Your lesson plans must be emailed to me or placed in my box by 4:00 p.m. on each Friday, and I expect you to have them there beginning this Friday." As an educational leader, is it always important to write a memorandum in a constructive manner, with precise directives to avoid real or imagined confusion about what is expected?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"55501584","body":"You posed a very important question LaJamea! In your post, you asked "as an educational leader, is it always important to write a memorandum in a constructive manner, with precise directives to avoid real or imagined confusion about what is expected?". My answer would be absolutely yes!!! Over the years, I have found myself to become increasingly dependent on memos and emails to get information to my staff. As the years have progressed, so has the "language" of my messages.
\n
\nSimplicity, clarity and knowing your audience is essential for educational leaders in using this form of communication. Tone is also of critical importance! Personally, I have found that I tend to use memos more when sent as a letter of direction or clarification. The tone of which tends to be of a more serious nature. I reserve short emails for more \u201clight-hearted\u201d messages such as congratulating staff on a job well done or sharing good news. Since reading this week\u2019s cases and your post, I am encouraged to revisit my \u201csystem\u201d a bit to insure that my memos are sending the right messages.","dateCreated":"1343083458","smartDate":"Jul 23, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"KatikaLovett","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KatikaLovett","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"55425290","dateCreated":"1342538696","smartDate":"Jul 17, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"LDixon21","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/LDixon21","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55425290"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Title IX and Sexual Harassment","description":"Title IX is generally used more in student cases than with employees, but the courts have been able to use both in certain situations of harassment. Damages can be collected when there are violations of either Title VII or Title IX. Title IX will also addresses issues of sex discrimination and sexual harassment. AB v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. District discussed equal protection. The courts have recognized some sexual harassment claims using the \u201cequal protection clause\u201d of the Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the plaintiff must show that discrimination was intentional. Standards for sexual harassment in the workplace are the same for both public and private employers. As evinced in Ellerth and Faragher, the employer may have vicarious liability for severe or pervasive conduct of employees in supervisory positions, but may offer an affirmative defense if the plaintiff employee has suffered no tangible adverse effect on his or her employment. An important component of the affirmative defense is demonstrating the existence and dissemination of an anti-sexual harassment policy. Sexual harassment is viewed as a form of sexual discrimination and therefore is a civil rights violation. Sexual harassment results when someone in a \u201cposition of power\u201d uses his\/her status to extort sexual favors from a subordinate. Sexual harassment is difficult to measure and not easily defined. Generally it takes place between a man and a woman however, it can also be in the form of \u201csame sex\u201d harassment as well.
\n
\nAs educational leaders we must develop, review, and disseminate a strong workplace policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Preferably there should be a mechanism for the faculty and staff to contribute to and ultimately endorse the policy and to help monitor it. The policy should contain a statement explaining why it is important to prevent sexual harassment. Included in this policy should be a clear description or explanation of the prohibited behaviors. Generally speaking, these behaviors are unwarranted or unwanted sexual attention from peers, subordinates, supervisors, customers, clients, or anyone the employee must interact with in order to fulfill the duties of the job or school where the employee's responses might be restrained by fear of reprisals. The range of behaviors includes (but is not limited to) leering, pinching, unnecessary touching or patting, verbal comments, subtle pressure for sexual activity, rape, and attempted rape. There should be clear assurances in the policy that an employee who files a harassment complaint or who provides information related to such a complaint will be protected from retaliation. There should also be assurances that, to the degree possible, the employer will protect the confidentiality of those who file harassment complaints.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"55405232","dateCreated":"1342407563","smartDate":"Jul 15, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jenniferps","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jenniferps","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55405232"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Student's Rights: Sleepover Pictures","description":"As a teacher and a mother when I hear student\u2019s rights, I just think, \u201cthis is something that was not even discussed when I was younger.\u201d As a young person, we just did as we were told, and we trusted that our teachers, parents and other adults were leading us in the right direction.
\n
\nOh how times have changed. Students are unfortunately taken advantage of and are put in precarious situations quite often. The other concern I have is that students may take advantage of the fact that they have rights and become disrespectful and unproductive members of society.
\n
\nWith all that, as teachers and school leaders, we have to be aware of the rights that are afforded to students and be sure that we are respecting those rights.
\n
\nIn a case concerning student photos taken at a slumber party, the student\u2019s free speech was upheld. In summary, there were 2 sophomore girls; one a cheerleader and the other a volleyball player that posted suggestive pictures from a summer slumber party on Facebook, Twitter, and Photo Bucket. The students only allowed access to friends and those with a password, but one parent saw the pictures and decided to go to the superintendent who in turn took the pictures to the principal.
\n
\nThe argument was that it caused issues on the team and the girls were removed from activities. In the end, their voice was heard.
\n
\nThis case goes back to a case that I brought up in class that discussed where the school\u2019s role as disciplinarian begins and ends. My question is just that, at what point is a student considered a civilian (not a student) and when are they (and continue to be) the student?
\n
\nCan the school continue to discipline beyond school if it does not harm or affect other students?
\n
\nhttp:\/\/blogs.findlaw.com\/seventh_circuit\/2011\/08\/court-upholds-students-free-speech-rights-in-sleepover-pics-case.html<\/a>","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"55410578","body":"Jennifer,
\n
\nThank you for your post and question. Disciplining in school for out of school issues is always tricky in that there must be evidence of the issue spreading over into the school house. There is a perception that the school is the answer for all issues arising with children and sometimes the parents bring issues to the school that do not concern the school. It doesn't appear that it was a school sponsored trip where the pictures were taken, and access was limited. It was during the summer time when school was not in session, so I do not think it was a school issue either and can understand why the students' rights were upheld. I know the school must step in with issues of bullying and issues where other students are harmed or the environment is disrupted. Parents need to address the other issues on a family or community level.","dateCreated":"1342451967","smartDate":"Jul 16, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"smctier1","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/smctier1","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"55398974","dateCreated":"1342371162","smartDate":"Jul 15, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"asmrburns1","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/asmrburns1","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55398974"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Teacher's Rights: MySpace","description":"In 2006, Garcetti v. Ceballos , the United States Supreme Court ruled that when public employees speak while performing their official duties, (i.e., \u201cjob-duty speech\u201d), their speech is not protected by the First Amendment and can result in discipline or discharge. This type of speech is not protected even if the employees are communicating corruption or wrongdoing to their superiors. The Court reasoned that employers have an interest in controlling their employees\u2019 professional speech because \u201cofficial communications have official consequences.\u201dWhile job-duty speech is not protected by the First Amendment, for K-12 educators and public employees, speech may be protected when statements are made outside the course of an employee performing official duties (i.e., \u201ccitizen speech\u201d). Examples of \u201ccitizen speech\u201d may include an educator writing a letter to a newspaper as a private citizen expressing an opinion about a matter of public interest. Discussions of politics with co-workers outside of work may also be considered protected speech.
\nIn 2006, a federal court rejected the case of a non-tenured teacher. In Spanierman v. Hughes, Spanierman was a non-tenured high school teacher in Connecticut. In trying to increase communication with students, he set up a MySpace page. A colleague became concerned when she visited the site and found that it contained inappropriate comments and pictures of naked men. She brought this to the attention of Spanierman, and he took down the page. He then began another page, which had similar content on it. At this point, the other teacher made the administration at the school aware of the situation. Spanierman was placed on administrative leave and did not have his contract renewed at the end of the school year. After hearings that he attended with his union representative and later with his attorneys, he received a letter stating that he had "exercised poor judgment as a teacher."
\nAccording to Jeffery Neuburger (2008), in an article on pbs.com, \u201cThe discipline of a teacher for conduct outside the classroom raises a number of legal issues, depending upon the circumstances: Is the school public or private? Did the teacher have a contract with the school that gives the teacher rights with respect to job termination? Are there state statutes that impose standards on the teacher, or obligations on the school with respect to teacher discipline? Did the conduct involve expression that may be protected by the First Amendment? Did the conduct have a connection to the school environment?\u201d. The school was a public school and because Spanierman was a non-tenured teacher, he was more vunerable to non renewal of his contract. Spanierman\u2019s court cases focused on his right to due process. However, the court\u2019s found that he was given due process through notice and hearings. He also claimed that he was the victim of \u201cselective persecution\u201d because he was not the only teacher on the faculty that had a MySpace page, yet he was the only one to be placed on administrative leave and to not have his contract renewed. The court also found against this claim. Spanierman was not able to prove that these other teachers had communication with students via their MySpace pages. Spanierman finally claimed that this was against his first amendment rights. This was also struck down by the courts.
\nAt what point do communications between students and teachers violate the teacher\u2019s First Amendment rights?
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/mediashift\/2008\/10\/teacher-fired-for-inappropriate-behavior-on-myspace-page289.html<\/a>","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"55410918","body":"Educators' interactions with students should be guided by professional ethics. In the Spanierman case described above, the statements suggest that the issue was the inappropriate images on the Myspace page that the teacher exposed the students to by allowing the students access to his page. I am unsure if the teacher posted the images or if the students posted the images, but the owner of the page is responsible for the content. As for the question about teacher First Amendment rights when communicating with students, I think it goes back to the idea that the teacher is an agent of the state when operating in his\/her professional capacity. If school is in session and the teacher is a professional in the environment with that student whether the student is specifically assigned to the teacher or not, then the teacher must communicate with the awareness that his\/her speech will be considered the speech of the school or the government. The Myspace page was intended as an educational tool, so the teacher was not acting as a private citizen with private speech and his First amendment rights were limited.","dateCreated":"1342453137","smartDate":"Jul 16, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"smctier1","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/smctier1","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"55392884","dateCreated":"1342301807","smartDate":"Jul 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"jonathanadel","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jonathanadel","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55392884"},"dateDigested":1532287206,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Teacher Rights","description":"In recent years, there has been an uptick in state and local governments seeking to remove previously held rights of teachers. In most every case, these rights have been related to collective bargaining and unions, but they relate to other rights as well. In Georgia, where we do not have collective bargaining rights, or any real say in our contracts, the further repeal of rights can seem like a scary proposition. There is not a great system in place for employees to express their concerns and be completely free of the fear of retribution. Though it was not in Georgia, the case of Omokehinde v. Detroit Board of Education was interesting to me in that it followed an employee speaking out against perceived mismanagement, and receiving retribution in turn after furthering her complaints. This was interesting, in that the courts felt that Ms. Omokehinde would have been out of place, and her first amendment rights not been violated if her only communication about the perceived wrongdoing had been to the paper; since she went through the appropriate channels of reporting before speaking to the paper, the courts felt that she had the implied protection of the 1st amendment even thought the statements to the paper were made in an official context.
\n
\nIt was interesting to see the Tinker principle applied here as well, even in the reverse context of its original meaning. In an opposing case, the Lee v. York County case was interesting to me, because it seems so obvious on the surface that posting religious items on a bulletin board would not be appropriate in a school setting. The precedent used to support the courts case was Garcetti v. Cebalos, where a district attorney was passed over for promotion due to his voiced disapproval of a search warrant. The court found in this case, as in Lee, that statements made pursuant to their position as a public employee, were not granted 1st amendment protection. Lee argued that the items should be allowed because of his position, but it was exactly his position that prevailed against him in the end; the bulletin board and the posting space were public property, and his role as a public employee did not permit him to post items that are contrary to the mission of the schools.
\n
\nMy question in the case of teachers rights is: in right to work states such as Georgia, would it be in the best interest of the state and schools to provide teachers with a means of disputing employment related concerns without fear of retaliation?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"55404678","body":"This is a very good question. I do feel that there should be an avenue for teachers to speak out against mismanagement and mishandling of situations that may involve the school, students and teachers. In my response, I had a case that dealt with 3 special education teachers that spoke out about their principal and his treatment of situations involving special education students. They first went through the appropriate channels and then on to the board. In that case the teacher's were upheld in their Freedom of Speech because they had valid concerns for students.
\nI would say that if the concern that a teacher has is in support of adverse actions taken towards students or even teachers, then it should be heard. I don't think teachers should be allowed to just bash a school, administrator or other officials. That can cause disruption in the school and community.","dateCreated":"1342405184","smartDate":"Jul 15, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jenniferps","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jenniferps","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55412354","body":"Jennifer,
\n
\nI agree wholeheartedly with you last statement. Just openly bashing your school and the people in it would be grounds for dismissal in almost any job, and should not be done. I thought that these cases were really interesting in how the courts decided what speech was done as a private citizen, and which speech was not protected because it fell in the realm of professional responsibilities. It is a very thin line, indeed!","dateCreated":"1342461585","smartDate":"Jul 16, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"jonathanadel","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jonathanadel","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"55392524","dateCreated":"1342299888","smartDate":"Jul 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"jonathanadel","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jonathanadel","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55392524"},"dateDigested":1532287207,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Student Rights","description":"The cases presented to us on this topic were very interesting, thought provoking, and varied. I felt slightly encouraged that many of the cases brought against school districts by students were upheld in the schools favor. I am not encouraged because I am against the children, but because I feel that it is of the utmot importance that school leaders have the ability to maintain an orderly and safe learning environment. While the reality is that the students 1st or 4th amendment rights may have been violated, the courts rulings seem to affirm that "one persons righs end where another's begins", meaning that their disruption was about more that their individual rights to free speech, but also about other student's right to a safe learning environment.
\n
\nOne of the cases that was most meaningful to me was Bethel School District vs. Fraser. In this case, a student gave a speech in support of a classmate running for student body vice president. This speech was filled with sexual double entendre, inappropriate for the school environment. The school suppressed the student's speech, and suspended the student. The student sued claiming breach of his 1st amendment rights. The courts, all the way to the supreme court, upheld the schools decision, citing that the 1st amendment right to free speech does not extend to disruptive speech.
\n
\nThe next case that I found very interesting was the Morse v. Frederick case, referenced by Matt a few weeks ago. The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" quote is enough to make most people chuckle, but the student that produced the sign and was subsequently suspended did not agree and sued. I would have never thought of the courts reasoning for upholding the schools actions, but upon reflecting on their decision, I think that it is correct. We all know that schools teach the anti-drug message, but I have never thought about it from the persepctive of the schools having a vested interest in students remaining drug free, and thus may feel compelled to take disciplinary action against students that promote illegal drug activity through word or speech.
\n
\nThere are good local examples of schools cases being upheld in the case of disrutive student speech. In 2008, the case of Boim v. Fulton County Board of Education was decided on in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Student, Rachel Boim, had written in a journal of a "dream" of her coming to school and shooting her math teacher during 6th period, then running out of the school in an escape attempt and being shot in her escape by the school resource officer. The writing came to light when the student was caught passing her notebook back and forth with another student in art class. When the teacher requested the book from the student, she did not comply, and even attempted to pass another notebook to the teacher. She finally relented and gave the original book to the teacher, where the story was discovered. The student was suspended, expelled at a tribunal hearing, but reinstated upon appeal to the board. Student sued claiming breach of 1st amendment rights, but the courts found in favor of the school district in light of the students understanding of her work, as well as under the current climate of school shootings (this case happened in 2003).
\n
\nMy question, in light of the courts favorable view of schools rights to maintain safe and orderly environments even at the suppression of some speech, is whether or not you see a tipping point, or whether student speech can continue to be a punishable offense?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"55425392","body":"Courts have recognized the rights of students to be informed of prohibited behavior and afforded certain procedural safeguards prior to the imposition of punishment. In discipline cases, several rules should be followed. The administrator should move forward with an investigation by gathering additional information on any disciplinary infractions reported. Administrators should make further inquiry of other wit\u00acnesses to ascertain the facts concerning the event. The administrator must determine the nature of the punishment, as the necessary steps will be modified with increasing severity of punishment. As educational leaders we should become fully familiar with applicable state laws and regulations and school district policies impacting their schools. Students who represent an imminent threat of harm to themselves or others or those who disrupt the school or its classrooms should be dealt with immediately with appropriate sanctions.
\n
\nProtected Speech in Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969 noted that students do not shed their Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Courts say that \u201cSince schools are \u201ceducating the young for citizenship,\u201d they should protect the \u201cConstitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes\u201d. \u201cTinker\u201d also established that there were exceptions as to what could be allowed, any student conduct that \u201cmaterially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others\u201d. A Principal may restrict student expression when there is significant evidence of a \u201creasonable likelihood of substantial disorder\u201d as cited in Dodd v. Rambis of 1981.
\n
\nStudents who are covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) and whose misbehavior is a manifestation of their disability are not automatically subject to a school system's suspension and\/or expulsion process as applied to general education students. These students have additional protec\u00action afforded under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973) to ensure fairness and equity of treatment. Suits for damages may result if administrators knew or should have known that their actions violate the procedural due process entitle\u00acments of their students.","dateCreated":"1342539378","smartDate":"Jul 17, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"LDixon21","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/LDixon21","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"55389478","dateCreated":"1342270444","smartDate":"Jul 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"premoli","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/premoli","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/edlaw-gsu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/55389478"},"dateDigested":1532287207,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"teacher rights - what would your students find if they googled your name?","description":"premoli
\nWhat would your students find if they googled your name?
\nI supervised a teacher who got caught in sticky situation because some students googled her name. What they found and told their parents about was a clip of the published poet (and teacher) reciting some of her cutting-edge poetry at a performance while topless. Because of her stance on the stage, no nudity was visible but the lyrics of the poem were just as sexual. Needless to say, she and I were in meetings with our principal much of the day parents called the school to complain.
\n
\nThe teacher was quite calm and very rational and offered a compelling argument that the website was part of her professional poet identity (for which she is critically acclaimed) that was very separate from her teaching profession. She felt it would be a violation of her speech to suppress the website. The teacher, who is also open about her homosexuality and in a committed long-term relationship, argued that students knew this and if they went looking for information on her life outside of school, she could not help what they found. Her response was if parents and students had a problem with the website, then they should not seek and view the website. She went on to reason that she authored a classroom website and that it was her teaching professional website that was given to students and parents to use. If parents or students went out searching for more, she could not be held responsible for their displeasure at what they might find since the teacher\u2019s website should be their only concern in relation to her ability to effectively teach.
\n
\nThis teacher taught me quite a bit on this particular day. Her well-reasoned and well-documented explanations made it clear that if the school system pressed her to suppress the questionable content such action would be a violation of her free speech. Her stance aligns well with Connick v. Myers in which it was established that \u201cthe First Amendment rights of a public employee are weighed against the ability of the government employee to maintain an efficiently run organization\u201d (Carter et al, 2008, p. 684). In this instance the teacher\u2019s ability to teach or maintain order was never expressed by the parents or students. Our administration was not pleased with the content on the teacher\u2019s other professional website, but rational heads prevailed. The stance of the administration to the parents was to encourage them not to seek out information that they knew they would likely find as offensive, \u201cdon\u2019t go looking for trouble.\u201d
\n
\nCarter, H.L.; Foulger, T.S.; and Ewbank, A.D. (2008). "Have you googled your teacher lately? Teachers' use of social networking sites. Phi Delta Kappa, May 2008, 681-685.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"55390878","body":"
\n
\nReply posted by: Lawanzer Smith
\n
\nKim....say what?
\n
\nHere is 1 dose of legal advice, and 2 doses of a reality check for your student teacher; free of charge :-).
\n
\nIt\u2019s interesting that you experienced similar circumstances of a situation that I encountered during my research. However, in the case that I read about, the consequences for the student- teacher were dire. In Snyder v. Millersville University, the university refused to give a student teacher her education degree because the school where she did her student-teaching coursework dismissed her for reasons stemming from the use of a social media website. Millersville University informed their student teachers in a training meeting that they would be expected to "maintain the same professional standards expected of the teaching employees of the cooperating school. Although slightly different from your case of students googling the student teacher\u2019s name, Snyder allowed several students access to her MySpace account, and was found to have some inappropriate conversations with the students, and made some what the school considered as \u201cinsubordination\u201d comments about the school. Most importantly, because it\u2019s somewhat similar to your student-teacher, the school took issue with a photo of Snyder wearing a pirate hat and holding a plastic cup with a caption that read, "drunken pirate."' With this, the school refused to let Snyder finish her student-teaching; consequently, she failed her student-teaching credits and the university denied her an education diploma.
\nThe district court treated Snyder with teacher status since she was expected to maintain the same standards. Snyder argued that dismissing her for her drunken pirate picture and the remarks she made about her school were a violation of her free speech. The district court applied the Pickering-Connick legal precedence, and held that the drunken-pirate photo and her comments were not protected because they were not a matter of public concern. The court decided that the school district's interests at maintaining employment harmony, superseded Snyder's interests. I wonder if the court would have distinguished between, Synder-who gave students access to the material versus students googling and locating the material from a search. In the end, the result is the same; access to material that could easily \u201cdisrupt\u201d the learning environment.
\n
\nSay what? Your student teacher said that if students or parents don't google her name; they won't find the website. Really??? That's synomynous to.... if the police dog in the school parking lot doesn't sniff around the car, it wont find the drugs. I think her explanation is an immature line of reasoning and one that will serve to place her in some sticky situations as an educator. Your student teacher had some lucky charms on her side: (1) A principal\u2019s and supervising teacher\u2019s support, and (2) parents who did not \u201cpush\u201d the envelope. Without this, I fear that she would have been walking on a slippery road. Simply put; the students have access to a teacher\u2019s websites which contain sexually explicit material; surely she can\u2019t expect that to be protected. It would behoove the student-teacher to understand that the public expects its teachers to function in the capacity as role models for students, and to maintain professional boundaries in and out of school; the two venues cannot be separated.","dateCreated":"1342285163","smartDate":"Jul 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"lsmith157","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lsmith157","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55408836","body":"This is a full-time teacher. I was very surprised by the support that the teacher received too. If the parent had complained about the teacher's ability to teach, I think that the support to protect her speech would have been unlikely. This teacher would have had no qualms with taking her speech rights all the way to the Supreme Court if she had the chance. She would also probably argue that she is a role model for students who are homosexual and content to live an open, alternative lifestyle.","dateCreated":"1342441676","smartDate":"Jul 16, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"premoli","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/premoli","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]}],"more":true},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}